clear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear clr cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear

cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear cleaclear place. room 244, san francisco california 94102. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of july 16, 2024, unless otherwise stated. that completes my initial announcements. thank you so much. can you please call item number one? item number one is the charter amendment first draft to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to provide for the election of director of the department of police accountability and election to be held on november 5th, 2024. supervisor walton. thank you. chair ronen. we are still working out some things with me so i'd like to continue this item to the call of the chair. okay. can we open up this item

for public comment? yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line would speak. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when your time has expired. are there any speakers on this matter? please proceed. public comment. oh sorry. please begin. so welcome, president peskin. nice to see you in the house. the. i'm talking to the public as always. i'm h. brown. i'm a retired special education teacher. i taught gangster kids. they prefer to be called that than severely emotionally disturbed. for since 1965, with breaks in between to do all kinds of other things. but what happens is they're they can be

reformed. you don't bust them on the hill. bomb because it's springtime and they're trying to impress the girls, that's the kind of, criminal justice system we have in this city. now that's the police chief's idea. his idea is to overload the jails with addicts and teenagers. you know why? they're easy to catch, we should be talking about electing a police chief also. and a couple of people running around this house here are running for mayor. and they could add that as a plank to their platform that would really be good. victor, i didn't hear the little bell. doesn't know the little one come before the big one. victor i don't think that the you started the timer. my apologies. the last thing i want to do is talk too much. thank you very much. you for noticing that, mr. brown. thank you. let's elect the police chief. thank you. hi, my

name is jordan. my pronouns are she her. they them. and i think that this might be beneficial. i mean i'm thinking about, like you know, all the things that have happened, and i'm thinking about how, police are now going to, like, brutalize the homeless. and now what we saw with the potential of what could happen with hilborn. but i want everyone to remember that the department of police accountability is not a bunch of acab anarchists like myself. i wish it was, but it's not. it's basically trying to at least prevent the police department at the minimum, prevent the police department from going dirty. harry on everybody. and dirty harry might have been a great film to some people, but it's not how you run a police department. so i'm definitely i'm probably going to vote yes on this when it comes up. if it if it gets on the ballot. so thank you very much. thank you. are there any additional speakers for this matter? there does not appear to be additional

speakers on item one. sounds good. public comment is now closed. do you want to make a motion? oh, yeah. okay. we have a roll call on the motion. yes on the motion to continue this matter to the call of the chair. vice chair walton a walton. i supervisor safaí safaí i chair ronen i ronen i the motion passes without objection. motion passes unanimously. thank you mr. clerk, can you please read item number two? item two. yes, please. oh sorry. my apologies. item number two, charter amendment, first

draft to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to establish the position of inspector general in the comptroller's office. to provide that the inspector general be nominated by the comptroller, subject to approval by the board of supervisors and the mayor to authorize the inspector general to initiate and lead investigations regarding potential violations of law and or policies involving fraud, waste, abuse, or misconduct. to expand the authority of the comptroller's office to issue subpoena, and to authorize the comptroller's office to execute search warrants to the extent permitted by law and an election to be held on november 5th 2024. thank you, president peskin. thank you, chair ronen. and thank you to yourself and supervisor safaí for your co-sponsorship of this charter amendment. and in the intervening week, we have met and conferred with the municipal executives association, as well as with other units of organized

labor. i believe the meet and confer obligation has been met and satisfied. and to that end, i would like to introduce a second draft with some minor amendments to clarify that normal personnel issues that are under the, auspices of the department of human resources not be implicated by this charter amendment. and to that end, remove the word misconduct at page four, lines nine and 17, page five at line seven, and also to clarify in the consultation process at page four line 22, that dr, shall be consulted with, as well as the ethics commission, city attorney and district attorney. so i would like, subject to public comment to make those minor amendments and to continue the

item for a final vote at the rules committee. thank you so much. we will now open this item up for public comment. yes. members of the public wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed two minutes again. voters know what you're voting for here. frankly i'm loving it. says right here it says they're going to have subpoenas and the power to execute a search warrant. wow. there's a lot of politicians and consultants and the like around town shaking in their boots on that one. i love it when legislation comes by this, but let's remember what this is. this is an end run on the mayor. all of these initiatives are because we have too much power in the mayor's office, and the mayor abuses it. you can vote on a $300 million thing to save kids and get them out of

poverty. and the mayor won't spend the money now they call it impoundment or something like that and all that. but these are to get around the mayor. some of them are good, some of them are bad. we're going to get on a bad one that a former mayor is pushing today. but this is a good one. let's see. search warrants. let's see subpoenas. yeah, i agree with the last speaker. my name is jordan again. she they and i really think this is necessary. and i'm fucking surprised that this already doesn't even exist here in san francisco. it literally shocks the hell out of me. and why? it's important to me as a formerly homeless person and a homeless advocate is that when you're a homeless advocate, you have to deal with the department of homelessness and supportive housing, which is one of the few departments where almost every function is contracted out. and that means like there are often like eight believe there are

like 80 cbo nonprofits that, they contract with some good some bad, and bigger doesn't always mean better. so i think that, like you know, i'm not a fan of, like basically expanding search warrants, basically expanding judicial powers, but this is a good thing. like, i want fucking politicians to quake in their fucking boots. and that's all i got to say. are there any additional speakers for item number two? there does not appear to be any additional speakers. public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a motion to amend this item. as stated by supervisor president peskin and then, continue this item to the july 15th, rules committee as a committee report. yes. on the motion to amend and continue, as amended, to the july 15th, rules committee meeting on that motion, vice

chair walton a walton i supervisor safaí safaí i chair ronen i ronen i the motion passes without objection. motion passes unanimously, mr. clerk, can you please read item number three? item number three is a charter amendment, first draft to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to require the board of supervisors set aside specific specified funds in the city's budget. each year beginning in fiscal year 20 2627, to fund project based rental subsidies to extremely low income households consisting of seniors, families with children and persons with disabilities, and an election to be held on november 5th 2024. thank you, and, supervisor president peskin again thank you. chair. ronen, i am quite pleased to bring this charter amendment to you this morning with a number of amendments.

after many months of work, with the communities against displacement coalition representing thousands of seniors, low income families and adults with disabilities who do not currently qualify for operating subsidies, along with our public sector labor unions and our affordable housing development community, back in may of this year our land use committee held a hearing on the critical need to address an issue that has long plagued san francisco, namely, that affordable housing is in fact not affordable to a growing swath of san franciscans. affordable housing development requires rents set by the mayor's office of housing that are vastly out of reach for some of san francisco's most vulnerable populations, namely seniors living on a fixed income below the poverty line, which our census data and reporting shows as one of the fastest growing demographics in the city and the state. while we do not currently have a limited amount of subsidies for seniors, while we do currently have a limited

amount of subsidies for seniors there is no permanent source of funding for a real program, and they do not cover those extremely low income adults living with disabilities, while we also have a local subsidy program for formerly homeless. this also excludes our struggling working families, who are essentially told if they want to qualify for affordable housing. in essence, they will have to become homeless first. i've tried for years to get a solution to this issue from working groups with the comptroller's office to exploring cooking these costs into the front end of bonds, all to no avail. although as a policy principle, i have been long been against the restrictive nature of setting aside funds in the charter. this is, as supervisor ronen pointed out to me earlier this morning, this is really the only way that we will ever get the opportunity to create a program as a starting point, let me be clear. the need is so great that we will have never get, we'll never get at closing this gap. and if

we start i hope the state and the federal government will follow as they did with our creation of the senior operating subsidy program. to that end, i have a summary of amendments to offer, short title would add persons with disabilities to the scope of the affordable housing opportunity fund. the long title would strike, require the board of supervisors set aside specified funds in the city's budget each year beginning in 2627, and instead replace it with established the affordable housing opportunity fund for seniors, families and people with disabilities and require the city to appropriate at least 8.25 million to the fund annually. starting in 2627. and then there are a number of technical amendments in the findings on pages one through five. and then section 16.132 is establishment of the fund. it's

a clarification. monies in this fund shall accumulate interest which shall be credited to the fund, provided that the balance of the fund exceeds $50,000. any unexpended and unencumbered balance remaining in the fund at the close of any fiscal year shall be deemed to have been provided for a specific purpose within the meaning of section 6.303 of the charter, and shall be accumulated to the fund. page seven and eight. definitions. we clarify extremely low income families. definition. we clarify the local operating subsidy program, we clarify senior housing definition. we clarify senior operating subsidies, and we clarify the sro unit definition, on page nine, annual appropriations to the fund we strike the language in sub one and replace with, except as provided in section sub d sub three, in sub two sub three, we

move up the effective date from 2930 to 2627, with a starting amount of no less than $4 million in year 26 27, with each fiscal year allowing no less than 8.25 million sub five we add, commencing with a report filed no later than march 1st 2025, the comptroller shall file annually with the board of supervisors by march 1st of each year. a report containing the amount of monies from each non-general fund source projected to be available that may be appropriate to the fund under this subsection. sub e use of the fund. we add a 20% cap for use of the fund for the purposes of subsidizing existing permanent, affordable housing. prioritize families with children in the eli family uses and sros. and finally sub f at a reporting requirement no later than june 1st, 2025. the mayor's office of housing shall publish a report describing and

analyzing implementation policy options that would maximize the number of eli affordable, senior family and accessible units through the provision of projected base rent subsidies in both new affordable housing and preservation projects. i want to thank all of the participants in these lengthy, difficult negotiations and particular thanks to my chief of staff sunny angulo, thank you president peskin. i'm just going to say a few words before i pass it to supervisor safaí. you know, set asides in this city are controversial, for good reason. they tie the board's hands, they tie the mayor's hands, in making decisions for the budget based on the needs of the city at any given time having said that i have supported pretty much every set aside. i think that has come

before this board. and the reason that i have done that each and every time is because the set aside usually is to protect extremely vulnerable people in the city. and sadly we have not been able to depend on mayor's past, to do that. and the truth of the matter is this board, when it comes down to it has very limited power over how to allocate the city's budget. we get one month, every year to analyze and try to find alternatives for, you know, what is it this year, $14.9 billion budget. so close to a, you know $15 billion budget? that's not enough time. that's not enough time to radically change how the city does its budget. so it's really the mayor who decides how

that 15 billion. and granted let's be honest about it. it's really only half of it that's discretionary because the other is for, enterprise departments. so when the board wants to prioritize in one of the richest cities in the richest country in the world, communities that are struggling in enormously, we really can't do it through the budget process the way that we can do it is through the ballot box and with set asides and it's often not ideal. but i believe it's necessary, because we should be using our massive budget to protect the most vulnerable people among us. that is a point of pride for the city and county of san francisco. so i'm glad that president peskin has come around and understood the need for set asides for low income communities, because it's something that, supervisor walton and i have supported year

in and year out. you know, every single time, and i would like to join him in this measure and be added as a co-sponsor. i also want to thank, tremendously all the advocates that are here today, i'll never forget, when ccdc, when i was budget chair or. no, no i was on the committee at the time, did a video, i think it was during covid, and they did a video of sro families in their units explaining what it was like to raise children, in a closet where a family is living in a tiny, tiny room with no kitchen with no privacy, with no bathrooms. and it was it truly impacted me in a really, really profound way. i had visited family sros and no family. no family should be living in an

sro. no children should be living in an sro. in fact, there have been studies that have shown that the developmental impacts on children that live in sros are no different from children that are homeless. and so the only way we're going to get those children and those families out of the sros are with this set aside. so again, thank you, president peskin, for bringing this forward. i am proud to add myself as a co-sponsor and i want to thank everyone for their hard work. supervisor safaí, thank you. just a couple of questions. i just want to double check, i see here that the one of the significant changes is that this will now be an annual 8.25 million. versus what was originally proposed. and the only time it goes down is one year. if there's a fiscal, deficit, and that would be in

2026, seven for the following year. is that correct? yeah that would if you go to page nine sub d annual appropriations of the fund, those that's where that is set forth. great so i just want to thank all of the i thank president peskin, and then also all the community that was involved in in these discussions, i think there were a significant amount of time, energy and effort with organized labor, with community nonprofit advocates for the elderly, for families, for persons with disabilities, and i agree, 100 we have to be thoughtful when we're doing set asides, but when you're thinking about a constituency that's voice is often not heard and amplified. but the need is dramatic, people living in overcrowded housing people living in situations where they're struggling, in

many cases paying over 70% of their income to survive in this city, many with children, and i too have visited recently the some of the sros and seeing the conditions that people are living in is in many cases is unacceptable for a city of san francisco's wealth. so we should be doing everything we can. i appreciate the reference in here, to existing dollars and existing funds, and it calls out a few of them. i also want to note that prop i, when it was originally contemplated, was thought to be, a way to create a consistent stream of funding for affordable housing. there's never been a full commitment to that. this is a very modest gesture that will have significant impact, on these families and on the ability to create a subsidy for extremely low income families. so, i'm

proud to have been involved in this conversation, and as was indicated, i'd also like to be added as a co-sponsor. this is important time to do this. our city has becoming much, much more polarized. and so many people are being pushed out that can't afford to live in this city, that provide a significant, contribution to our city. so thank you for everyone involved, and look forward to the voters of san francisco, which i think is appropriate in this case. the voters of san francisco will have the say, of prioritizing this important funding mechanism for immigrants, for seniors, for families, for those with disabilities, so i think the time is right for this 100. thank you. thank you. supervisor safaí and i should point out that the recital on page five, p that i just handed out to you states that the intent is that these come from the empty homes

tax the homelessness gross receipts tax, so that is the intent. thank you, supervisor walton. thank you so much, chair. ronen, i just want to add one, i agree with the comments of my committee members, but also just want to add that set asides are actually more responsible than people give, give the city credit for because we allow the public to vote on them and make sure that it's something that is in line with the will of the voters. and so yes, this is a small gesture to make sure that our most isolated populations receive support to maintain housing here in the city. so i just want to make sure that i am added as a co-sponsor. thank you, president peskin, for bringing this forward. thank you. thank you. and we will now, open this item up for public comment. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time each speaker

will be allowed two minutes. hello, public. i'm h. brown, the reformed school teacher. retired, but also a navy veteran. what this legislation does is it adds another channel through which ubi funds are going to be running within the next five years. all you people sitting behind me in the audience, you're going to lose your jobs. and that's a good thing, because then you'll have all of your time free. but what happens with, a program like this ubi, when you get 100 million americans unemployed you're going to have something like the depression? no, you're not, because ai is going to channel the funds. and this is an agency that you can do it with. now, i was saved by the navy. i've done a lot in my life, but i wore a uniform for 11 years with an american flag on the shoulder, and i'm very proud of it. when i joined the navy i raised my hand and

promised to kill anybody in the world. i pointed at for $78.50 a month. because that's what you do when you join the military. and so now let's 78, 50 a month has expanded a little bit. i'm 80 years old i was living, nine years ago. i was living in a 98ft!s in an sro and still up here harassing you. now, i have 450ft!s because the navy gives $36,000 a year for my rent. my rent is $3,300 a month. i pay 300. a program like this can. is that the loud one, victor? that is, you have 30s i have. oh, god. seconds. such a long time. aaron. that's your number one accomplishment, detraction. and all your 24 years you took public comment from 3 minutes to 2 minutes. damn you for that, boy. it was actually gonzales.

gonzales used to give five minutes. if there were five people in the audience and they knew what they were talking about. next speaker. please i believe. hi. good morning. supervisor, my name is manzella. i'm from self-help for the elderly, first of all, i want to thank you, all of you. because i know you all is behind this bill and hopefully that we can have it passed. i'm here to share some information with you. so in case someone say no or have a pessimistic view about this bill, i want to make it real for them. when we launch, when we meet with the press on 42. gary which is the first affordable senior project in richmond district. immediately that same day, our office, my phone, my phone line is under siege by the senior calling in to find out how they can get into it. we are estimating 5 to 10,000 seniors will apply for that particular housing, because that's the first one in richmond

and first one in a while. that offer, as sos. secondly, i want to make it real for those that who opposed to this, bill, right now, as you as, president peskin point out, we don't have set aside money. so every year the housing counselor is biting the nail. if they still have any nail left to hope that they have the money for the senior, because if they don't, they have to tell the senior they have no grant for them. they might get eviction. so are they ready to see and meet hundreds? if not thousands of senior fellow seniors? that because of no subsidy, which is not their fault, they serve our community they serve our food, they do our laundry, but now they're old, they cannot make the money and they have to force to live on the streets. so thank you again for all the supervisor help. and, thank you.

go. i see tom johnson. go. i bqe janet yellen uyghur liang wenbo. go. jacquie sarmiento, the voice of god. why why j&j cutting to my changchong jianshe jiang jiang cheng ho dan venmo dongjun go there. hold on one thing. d.o.j. lu yan fauci go suddenly home. williamson told him to follow yan bacoachi. but fu have you how yan. my god, i. do. how were you? how did a hoii tawa johnsonville. who chichi fong okay. what you can do huang ningo tiktok sausage venmo d.o.j. good morning. paul the

supervisor. i'm the president of the community. tenant association wang ho leung. i'm representing 3000 members who stand with you all to fight for the truly affordable housing for low income senior families and people with disabilities. we have many members who are waiting for senior housing over ten years on waiting lists, but have not received a response. then some of them finally receive the offer for their housing, but are then told they do not qualify because their income is too low. this is not just this. therefore, we would like you all to vote yes on this ballot measure to help more grassroot community to find housing we need. thank you. kauai somchai. joe biden. all i see a high level security guard in the highway. lazy or don't

want to die in the gi hall full time for long time. ordering all the mail may come to some white guy or the low. and. lazy donkey. they all know how to come to enjoy life. they will loan you cow. cow to. in to do anything from now on. i don't know then why all the getting will go to balang. all day. so you sending a whole food out for pork? those j&j. so you think our lady and her gigi pussy come back? good morning, board of supervisor, i'm sheng hong lu, a

community tenant association board member. my wife and i are fortunate living in a senior affordable housing. but i'm worried about our future. the husband of one of our neighbor passed away a few years ago. together they could afford the rent but with one income, the window must be picked up the can to pay the rent. now i'm worried what will happen to my wife when i pass away. our situation is almost the same. my wife could not afford the rent alone. we need to have this truly affordable senior housing for all seniors. this is why we ask you to vote yes on this supervisor peskin proposal. thank you. and taja, how? washers and feng zhang jing tian jia kui hui yuan li hai ling jing tian chen jing shan gt ju feng shui tong guan xiao feng zhong yao. ping pong. xiao feng

jian yang. you are. shamann. huang. jing li yu chen. zhang. guotao. zhang. sanfeng thank you for watching. xiang yu yu ying when she ping bo. how do you. shepparton san juan baggio, liu mao yi chen are we go for the san juan de san juan woman. can you can choose among the jitsuroku feng shui ji jin su woman wei yi pan shou san feng shui sites. what can jing shan tonghua gt ru zhu fan zhi jing long gt suru jia ting zhejiang sanjiang dong anthony fauci joe biden. how the shu fang. good morning supervisors. my name is hai ling li, a member of the esol families united collaborative. today i'm here to urge supervisors to support the housing opportunity fund, which

is crucial for our vulnerable community. my family of four lives in a small room that is less than 100ft!s. my daughters are seven and five years old, as you know. so is not a good environment for children to grow up in. we have always tried to move out, but our income is too low to afford a current rent. my husband, due to his limited english skills, works a tiring and low paying part time job in a restaurant, earning less than $1,000 a month. i have to take care of my kids and cannot find suitable work in the expensive city of san francisco. it is difficult for us to have the opportunity to move out of sro. the housing opportunity fund will finally give families my mind. the chance to move out of an sro and into truly affordable housing unit. i hope we can get supervisors support so families

seniors and people with disabilities with extremely low income will get a chance to stable, affordable housing. thank you. chiam see muntaka ho wah siang wong t. kelsey tam simon tiktok fong gai gai gum wah. mommy otolaryngology hasan fong face on zhejiang venmo tong, hong kong tong my a baker joe gong for san fong yam yam hota ohlone lui jingsheng a mo zheng zhan feng gao to my fan yao zheng san san fong. when you go one day. fong to your you. you took your part time job. so moutinho. gao. hey zhou. washoe

county. fong lan. hey ho yi si. sam. simon. how did he go? yap fong uyghur. my name is yao lin. chen a member of the so families united collaborative. i'm here to ask for your support for the housing opportunity fund for the extremely low income people. as a single mother living in a tiny sro with my two daughters, we lack space for them to play and study. the poor soundproofing affects their concentration and sleep making school challenging. with only a low wage, part time job. i cannot afford better housing for my family. we do not qualify for even the city's so-called affordable housing units. with my income. the housing opportunity fund is our hope. i hope supervisors can support this measure. thank you.

we see some. go go go go. hi thank you. with the cutting they are suffering from santo domingo hunting season. okay. come on. thank you. fauci samuel alito yang yang yi, hong kong on. the ho ho yao yap johan san juan, san. solomon. ho okay. come to you. i saw your face on dongyu yang. okay, we saw your hunting season. okay come. d.o.j. hi, supervisors. my name is ma li huang. i am from esol families united collaborative. my family of four is living in a small so today i'm here to urge

supervisors to support the housing opportunity fund to assure that i'm living in right now. we have to share bathroom and toilet with 20 other households. it has been negatively impacting our lives due to limited space. my kids don't have a good environment to study. i want to be able to provide them a better living environment, but my income is not enough. it has been difficult for me to apply for affordable housing. last time when i applied for affordable housing, i was waitlisted. 30,000 housing opportunity fund is very important for us. extremely low income families like mine hope to get more housing opportunity, so we hope to get your support for this measure. thank you. good morning. my name is ann lim and i am a tenant councilor with the south of market community action network. we support item number

three or the housing opportunity fund for seniors. and families for the extremely low income housing and urge you to vote yes on this item at som. can we serve extremely low income clients with very little resources and could not afford rent? in san francisco we have extremely low income and senior clients who were evicted from their homes and could not find affordable housing in the city. we have senior disabled renters who could not keep up with rent and are forced to move out and could not find affordable housing that are appropriate for their condition. we have seen children living in terrible conditions in sros. we know that you have the capacity to change and help most of our vulnerable families. please prioritize helping our communities as our seniors and families are being pushed out from san francisco. thank you. and again, we urge you to vote yes on affordable housing opportunity fund. thank you. again, jordan sheedy and i want to voice my support for this. i first actually heard

about a day a couple days before it was introduced, when me and supervisor peskin were at a house party and he talked and we were talking about personal growth and he told me about this and i think it took a lot of growth, like for the board's fiscal hawk to really embrace set asides because this is like, really necessary for all the reasons that were said by the supervisors. and i also want to echo what's going on with the families, because it's a fucking crime that families are in sros and but i want to expand that and say, i'm a single, disabled adult, and one day i might be a senior if i don't die early and they're not suitable for them either. hell, they were barely suitable for the people that they were built for, namely exploited immigrant laborers who are people of color and probably immigrants from like southern and eastern europe. but i'm just saying that we need to do this.

i'm sick and tired of, people having to live in sros, and it it's just like we got to, like, think of something better. and this is disaster. capitalism it's fucking worse. and i am saying this as an sro tenant and as someone who served on a commission now defunct commission dealing with sro issues and a tenancy designated tenancy, sros are not good long term housing. it will never be good long term housing. and we need to wean ourselves off this shit. fuck. what else is there to say? hello, my name is leah mckeever. i live on market and seventh where there is a lot of homelessness and other issues that the board here spends a lot of time discussing. never actually solving. it seems, i

support everyone in here who needs this charter amendment because their housing unstable. they can't. they don't have the power to do better. they come here begging for you to help them do better. and i know you've heard the same stories over and over and over again. so a lot of this is on you. is your responsibility. i was watching the show alone the other day and it's where they drop off really macho people who think they have great survival skills in the middle of the wilderness because they're convinced they can survive by themselves out there, and they can't, shelter is the first thing that they build because they absolutely need it to survive the elements. and then food, because they absolutely need it to live. and survive, but also human connection is what takes them

out a lot of the time especially the most macho men and so when i see these shows and after, like, week three they're all emaciated, you know they've built whatever little shelter they can, but there's not enough food. the shelter sucks. they're alone by themselves, ignored the equivalent of being ignored in our society here and on market. and seventh, i see the same thing. and i'm like, what's different being in our society in san francisco than being dropped off in the wilderness in the middle of nowhere? i don't know, i think the only difference is money, and that this government only listens to money and not the poor. disenfranchized oppressed people who keep on yelling and yelling and yelling to have some of that money. so yes, give them a band-aid, but you need to be doing so much more. buenos dias supervisors, my name is brenda

cordova, solidarity president de la mesa directiva confederacion en el area de la bahia and en el distrito numero c, asistio a la iglesia san pedro hoy estoy aqui para pidiendo ustedes como servidores publico para esta esta medida para para estar en la boleta. en este noviembre, ya esta de gran ayuda y alivio para familia y adultos mayores de ingresos y gente con discapacidad. asi como yo me gustaria vivir independiente pero con mis ingresos no es posible para me hacer realidad es sueno. asi puedo hacer un voto moral por nuestra comunidad. gracias. good morning supervisors. my name is brenda cordova, leader and president of faith in action of the bay area. i live in district six and i go

to san pedro church here today. i'm asking and begging you to you as public servants to approve this measure and put it in the ballot in november. this will help and be a relief to many families, adults, seniors and also persons with low income of low income and disabled people like me. i would love to believe independently, but with my income i this is not a possible dream for me. i ask you morally to vote for this and help our community. buenos dias supervisors. me nombre es maria martinez. soy la confederacion en el distrito beyonce y la iglesia san antonio, como voluntaria del centro de mayoria de la renta. escuela preocupacion por la falta de

vivienda realmente accessible ai personas aplican y passa tanto tiempo sin respuesta. es triste pero es la verdad. las personas pfizer sin ninguna respuesta. por estas on es importante. ustedes esta extension de ayuda para la vivienda. les pedimos esta medida para estar en la boleta de noviembre. gracias good morning. supervisors. my name is maria martinez. reglas. i am a leader with faith in action, and i live in district 11, as a volunteer at the senior center on s on 30th street. and i'm very worried because of the lack of affordable housing, there is people that are have applied and have been in the list for a long time with no

answer. the people sometimes pass, you know, die without a response. that's why it is very important that you help and approve this extension to help to put this in the november ballot. and so they can be approved at this time. thank you. buenos dias. a todos me nombre es mirna rosales. soy libre de fe in action. vive en el distrito en contigo en la iglesia. ministerio fuente de vida. soy una senora de la tercera edad. quisiera independiente de mi hija de tener una vivienda asequible cayo pueda con mis pocos ingresos de mis retiro. por eso esta medida del del fondo de vivienda extension de los subsidios para una gran esperanza a todos los adultos

mayores deseamos un hogar de donde vivir por eso, espero de ustedes tengan una aprobacion moral para esta medida esté in noviembre in la vuelta. gracias good morning all my name is myrna rosales and i'm a leader with faith and action. i live district 11. i am a senior and i. i would like to live independently, be independent from my daughter and have my own alone. and because of the lack of low income housing, i am not able to pay this rent with my very low income. that's why i'm asking that you approve these funds that will extend subsidies to those of us that are hoping that all of us seniors that want to live in a dignified manner. that's why we're asking you to

be to a vote morally and put this measure in the november ballot. i'm sorry. buenos dias. me nombre es marixa velez. i'm a congregant in la in la iglesia santa. el distrito cinco soy de faction, la bahia de la pidele a los senoras supervisor de los adultos mayores. hoy en dia no son de la paz mental proporciona tener una vivienda accessible low, dignified, como seres humanos. esta medida seria un legado en realidad por vida a los supervisores para hacer realidad. el sueno de san francisco es el mejor lugar para vivir. gracias good morning. my

name is maritza aviles. leader with faith in action in the bay area. i am a senior adult, and today i do not enjoy the peace of mind. like all all other seniors having having a sensible home, dignified for all human beings. this measure will be a legacy that will honor the supervisor supported for life to make the dream come true. that san francisco is the best place to live. thank you. okay, when the me nombre es violeta, soy organizadora action y vivo en el distrito nueve y pertenezco a la parroquia de san pedro. good morning. my name is violeta, and i'm a leader with faith in action. and i also live in district 11. and i attend san pedro church, distrito nueve. sorry, district nine, no sé si

recuerda a supervisor a hillary. cuando los adultos mayores ganaron el subsidio para casa delante. i don't know if you supervisor hillary, remember when the seniors were able to have the approval of the measure for subsidies? a don't have an especial una persona con diabetes. su vida cambio totalmente don't have a senior with diabetes. his life changed drastically. la alegria de esos adultos mayores y como estan viviendo con dignidad con un con ellos pueden pagar, and seeing those seniors living in a dignified and happy with paying a place that they can afford no solo es una alegria para ellos, sino para toda la comunidad is not only a joy for them, but for the whole entire community. yes algo de la ellos muy orgullosamente hablan and they

are very proud to speak of this all the time. pero solo una parte de eso, senor. it's only a certain number of seniors. tenemos muchos adultos mayores incluso estan ya viviendo en refugios o en carros. and we have a lot of seniors that today are living in cars or in shelters. tenemos la seguridad y la confianza en ustedes para regresar el verdadero significado a san francisco de una ciudad santuario, una ciudad y proteger a su comunidad, we are very, you know, we count on you and we are. we know that we can count on you to approve this measure and also to keep supporting that the city of san francisco, as a sanctuary city

a los adultos un trabajado para dar grande beneficio a esta ciudad y ahora creo qué le corresponde esta ciudad? dar el grande beneficio a ellos para qué pueden ver con dignidad y tranquilidad? these seniors have worked really hard to bring, wellness to this city. and i think it's about time that this city also brings them of some dignity and so they can live also in a happy, dignified manner as esta medida, este noviembre es un urgencia y un urgencia moral. it is it is urgent and it is a moral urgency for this measure to be in the ballot in november. gracias thank you. good morning. my name is betty trainor. i'm the on the board of senior and disability action first, i'd like to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this measure to the board and

for all his work in in getting us here today. and from hearing the supervisors comments, i certainly hear that you get it, that this measure is so important and we can confirm that not only what you've already heard from the speakers, but also at senior and disability action, we have seniors coming in, people with disabilities who need housing. we show them a list that what's available as of this month, and they just turn it back to us and say that, we can't afford this. our income is maybe 31,000 a month on social security or on ssi. and here they're asking that we have a annual income of as much as 30,000 a year. so it's just not it's just not possible. and we've heard a lot of testimony today about that. and so i just want to thank you again for your support of this measure. and we know it's just the beginning here in san francisco. we need more funding

at all. government levels for more housing that's for sure. and i hope we work on this all together. so thank you very much. and we look forward to seeing this measure on the november ballot. thanks a lot. magandang umaga po. good morning supervisors. hello. my name is lillian kintanar and i'm a filipino caseworker with som. can a member of the sro families united collaborative. i work in the soma with low income working class immigrant families and families living in sros, many who are single parents, seniors, and people with disabilities. the most vulnerable members of our community. we support the affordable housing opportunity fund for seniors and families and urge you to vote yes on this item. many seniors are coming to us for help because they cannot afford their rent, and they are at risk of being evicted. their rent is up to 70% or even more of their fixed income, and they

cannot afford this and they have nowhere to go. many families cannot even apply for many of the so-called affordable housing on the dalia san francisco affordable housing portal, because the rent is too expensive and they are not eligible to apply for listings because their income is too low. we have seen the dire living situations of families with small children, teenagers, families with four, even five members living in tiny sros rooms with no privacy. and many have habitability issues from elevators that break down every week. this is an impossible situation, especially for seniors and people with disabilities, shared bathrooms and pest infestations that greatly affect the health and well-being of the families. we have long time residents of san francisco have been living in their homes, even up to 40 years. many are seniors and people with disabilities that are being evicted with nowhere to go and eventually find themselves in the streets due to

lack of available, accessible affordable housing. thank you again and we urge you to vote yes on the affordable housing opportunity fund for seniors. people with disabilities and families. good morning. my name is leilani ching and i work for ycd as a care coordinator. standing before you today, i urge you to support the opportunity measure for many elders and families in san francisco. affordable housing is just a distant dream. dreaming should not be our reality and my reality was working hard to make ends meet. i never imagined the struggles hidden within our city, but witnessing the lack of options from our own nana, my grandmother, a pillar, a woman that was a pillar of strength and kindness. truly opened up my eyes. she impressed on us as little kids to never put her into a convalescent home and on

her social security and her limited income. she did her best to keep us out of foster care unsuccessfully. eventually which is why, in her honor, i do whatever i can to support those that are most vulnerable. limited income and soaring rents forced a heartbreaking decision, and she transitioned in a convalescent home. we can't turn our backs on our most vulnerable. this measure is a lifeline, offering dignity and a chance for an opportunity as a supervisor, peskin clearly stated, we will never fill the gap, but we cannot stop saying yes to opportunity. let me repeat that. let's stop saying no to opportunity. let's ensure everyone has a safe and affordable place to call home. thank you. hello everyone! my

name is lachelle read. i'm a program coordinator at ycd and a proud native of the bayview community in san francisco. i'm here today to advocate for the allocation of affordable housing funding for ely households particularly within the black community. i have seen firsthand the struggles faced by those seeking supportive housing services to escape unsafe living conditions. as a mother of three, i understand the challenges of feeling trapped in a cycle of poverty and violence. my section eight voucher was a lifeline that helped me escape. escape such conditions. i have witnessed the impact of violence in my community, and i believe that everyone deserves the chance to live in a safe and stable home. every success story, like the single mother who finally received the section eight subsidy after five years on the wait list, reaffirms my commitment to fighting for a future where every individual has the opportunity to thrive. let's work together to provide hope and dignity to those who have been marginalized and forgotten. affordable housing is not just about securing a roof

over one's head, it's about restoring the possibility of a better future for all. thank you. good morning. my name is ali canto and i've worked with ely households facing housing insecurities for the past four years. i currently work in bayview hunters point at ycd and live in the tenderloin, witnessing the same stories just different names and faces. and i ask you, how can we keep doing this? here are a few examples of what i witnessed daily. i've seen my clients despair when they hear about affordable housing, but quickly realize it's not for them. a household with their certificate of preference still can't apply for affordable housing because they do not income qualify for any units. a senior client with multiple chronic health issues applied to hundreds of low income housing, only to end up on ten year waiting lists. a

family of four with a full time job still can't afford their monthly rent, even after emergency rental assistance. when they finally came up for a dahlia bmr unit, they had to turn it down because the rent was just as high as their current rent. how is it that we are in a city known for its progressive values and diversity, yet we are allowing our neighbors, predominantly people of color, to be pushed out and left without opportunities. we need a commitment to fund housing programs specifically for ely households. the city's future depends on it. thank you. good morning, supervisors. zach weisenburger from ycd. our organization is here today in support of the housing opportunity fund. because most of the clients we serve, often black and brown ely families not income, qualify for affordable units on dahlia. with 48% of the city's black

population being ely. one of the biggest obstacles to black residents obtaining affordable housing is the lack of deeply affordable units in our system. i also want to highlight a point that hasn't been talked about enough, and that's that copy holders are also greatly impacted, impacted by the lack of deeply affordable housing. in may, most city presented its annual copy report, which stated that 40% of copy holders who were actively pursuing affordable housing opportunities were extremely low income due to a lack of ely units. many copy holders cannot access the affordable system and have essentially been given a worthless certificate as compensation for being forcibly displaced from their homes by creating units that serve their income levels. this legislation offers a better opportunity for ely copy holders to leverage their preference certificates and access affordable housing unless we pass this legislation and dedicate funding for ely subsidies, the city will continue to leave out many senior and family copy holders from our affordable system. thank you. good morning

supervisors. my name is amelia. i'm a multigenerational d10 tenant and i'm a housing community advocate at the asian law caucus. our housing rights legal clinic serves low income immigrant tenants and provides in-language culturally competent representation to fight eviction and displacement. many of our tenant clients are asian and asian american tenants, which is the largest group in san francisco at or below the poverty line. we are here today to urge the board to bring the housing opportunity fund to voters. alcs has a history of supporting creative solutions for housing stability in our community, and a local fund for extremely low income families backed by voters is a simple necessary tool in the toolbox. too often, our clients struggle to cover basic needs and can't even qualify for so-called affordable housing because of their extremely low incomes families and seniors are trapped in an impossible situation. they have to choose between living in cramped, unsafe housing or

leaving their home in san francisco altogether. i can't tell you how many times my family has sat at a kitchen table and had this discussion and ultimately had to leave our current affordable housing program excludes tens of thousands of seniors, working families and peoples with disabilities. for example, a single parent working a full time minimum wage job is not paid enough to qualify for most of the city's affordable family housing. i also want to add that san francisco's housing element demands that we have nearly 14,000 l.a. units added, or 1748 homes a year for households earning below 30, ami the housing opportunity fund will move us closer to our housing goals, but we also continue to urge the city and the supervisors to provide a concrete plan to meet the basic needs for extremely low income families and seniors. all people deserve the right to age with dignity, build a life of stability and develop a sense of belonging in our community. please support the housing

opportunity fund and bring this measure to voters. thank you. good morning supervisors. my name is itzel romero mei. i'm a organizer at senior and disability action. i've worked at sda for almost a year and a half now, and i'm always hearing the same thing. the rent is too high and particularly affordable housing. rent is too high and it's difficult to describe what i feel when i think about the fact that there are currently no options for extremely low income seniors and people with disabilities and families, it makes me very angry that every day our community is suffering and i also know that we need to be creative and responsive to the issues that we face. for a lot of people, this is what they've been waiting for ten plus years. this is one solution and one big step towards making affordable housing affordable for all people. i thank you for your time, and i hope that the board can continue to support this measure and support our communities. thank you. hi, i'm

an axel rama with senior and disability action. when i first got here, i got a job and couldn't afford housing, so i ended up homeless. i was a victim of violence and finally got into an sro. i've been following the affordable housing waitlist and offering for years and they are always unaffordable to me and my friends. this housing measure ensures that there are at least some deeply affordable housing opportunities for families, seniors and people with disabilities. it's not easy to transition from homelessness into market rate housing, mental health, bad credit and housing unaffordability are real barriers. we need more opportunities for deeply affordable housing because our most vulnerable communities fall through the cracks. most of the affordable housing opportunities are unaffordable for people living in sros are struggling to overcome mental health or living on fixed incomes. please pass this measure so we can have extremely low income, deeply affordable housing. our community demands deeply

affordable housing and this measure provides that. thank you for your time. good morning. my name is pj eugenio and i'm with tomken. we support affordable housing opportunity fund for seniors and families and urge you to vote yes on this item because housing is a human right. our community needs housing. we see it every day with our work that families don't have a choice but to leave san francisco because they can't afford to stay here, even if they wanted to. san francisco is changing rapidly, and it's not for the better, and we all can see that the city needs to protect and serve the most vulnerable families. let's build this city for the people who makes this city run, which are the extremely low income and working class families. thank you. thank you. and again, we urge you to vote yes on this measure. good morning supervisors. my name is janet daniels and i'm a product of

homeless homelessness here in san francisco. i am housed now. but before that i have been working for 40 years putting something up in the system. and now that i'm retired homeless people, i've experienced homelessness in the city and when i'm about to get housing they give me three choices, two sro and a senior. i'm 64, so i toured the sro units and sro unit are shared bathrooms, shared kitchen and i'm going to be paying 30% of my salary which end up like i'm only, going to be ending up with a little $100 at the end of the month, but my point is, it's okay if the sro is in living condition, but it's not. i open up the window, i see a wall, i open up the door. it's you can smell pee and poop around, you

know, i urge you, supervisor to please take a look at these sros because they're especially for seniors like me. i don't think i will live there for a long time. so i turned down two and got a senior housing. i'm just glad that i am senior, but if i'm not senior and younger, i will be ending up at the sro, which i have no choice. i would like to end up my speech by urging you guys to please look at the affordable housing. fund for seniors and disabled to so that we can enjoy life here in the city. i am so thankful for the homelessness. system here in the city. i'm a product of it, and i'm just so glad that, i ended up in a good living condition. i also would like to give another. just a quick one. we have a fellow filipino who was killed in the bart system. she cannot afford to live here. she has to live outside. so that ended up, you know, has elapsed. thank you.

you can use the next microphone. it's lower the next microphone to your left. it's a lot lower. oh this one okay. great. thank you. greetings. members of the rules committee. my name is maya scott chung, and i am a peer advocate and housing and transit justice organizer for senior and disability action. we organize with people with disabilities and seniors in san francisco and the east bay to improve services and programs that impact our community, i'm 58 years old. i'm queer and non-binary. i'm a parent and extremely low income. i fled domestic violence on may

4th, 2021, in east oakland, and it took me 1117 days to find affordable, accessible housing in the bay area. i was in the domestic violence shelter system for almost three months and could not even find a wheelchair accessible shelter room in five counties, including san francisco. and when i was finally housed in the east bay and as a result of going through 211 and coordinated entry, i qualified for, an emergency housing voucher. so i'm one of 70,000 people in the united states who has a lifetime, section eight voucher as a result of being low income, disabled, and a domestic violence survivor during the pandemic. i finally got housed 44 days ago in a wheelchair

accessible, habitable home in emeryville. and just want to say that all of our families deserve to be protected, reflected and connected. and this is an incredible opportunity for san francisco to lead the way in this state and in this country around deeply affordable housing for all. thank you. hello. my name is mitch mankin, speaking on behalf of san francisco housing development corporation. we're a community based, affordable housing developer resident service provider, housing counseling agency and economic development agency based in the bayview and fillmore. our housing counseling clients are often dismayed to learn that it is possible to make too little income to qualify for affordable housing. for many, their only choice is whether to move out of the city or become homeless. the idea that a full time minimum wage worker in san francisco makes too little to qualify for most affordable housing is shocking

to many and needs a remedy. the housing opportunity fund is a thoughtful investment for our extremely low income seniors. for single parents, for copy holders, and for all the working san franciscans that need it most when they prosper. we all prosper. stable housing is the foundation for a healthy life, and voters will see in this measure the board's concern for the needs of our most vulnerable. thank you to supervisor peskin for introducing this measure. and thank you, supervisors walton safaí and ronen, for your earlier comments. please do advance the housing opportunity fund to the ballot both now and in future hearings. thank you. hi, i'm colleen rebecca with tndc. we also support the housing opportunity fund. we appreciate all the work that has taken to get here so far. 20 years ago, when i first started working in the tenderloin with extremely low income and unhoused people, one of the first things i learned was that

affordable housing is not affordable to the lowest income people in san francisco, and it's something that doesn't make any sense, it's something that i've spent many hours explaining to community members, friends, even family members who asked me what i do for a living and the fact that our affordable housing system is not affordable for lowest income people is a result of policy failures at federal and state levels. and we can't wait for those to be remedied at those levels. and so it's really important that we have a local remedy, even if it is a partial remedy for that, because there are too many people who are waiting for safe, dignified affordable housing. and what happens to folks when they don't have that, they sacrifice their food budgets, they sacrifice their health care, to pay their rent. they're in danger of

becoming homeless and they're in danger of being displaced altogether from the city. so that's not okay. we should be doing something about it. and this measure gives us a chance to do that. thank you. hello. my name is theresa imperial. i'm the director of bills for housing program, first of all, i want to thank supervisor preston and also supervisor safaí ronen and walton in co-sponsoring this ballot measure that we hope to be to be won in the november election. and hearing from the all of the supervisors seems like you all get it. and what does it mean to have a set aside and set aside? is usually, like you all said, it's a controversial one and always a lot of negotiations happening between different sectors. but at the end of the day, there are the reasons for set asides is because there are communities, community, there are particular

communities that needs more attention, and this one has been a long time coming. this has been a conversations with the community for the last five years or so. so this just didn't come out of nowhere. and also after, you know, from this today's hearing, you, you, you heard all of the stories of all the seniors and people with disabilities and also the stories that we get from our organizations. too many of our seniors are rent burdened as what has done, das, reported. and i just want to highlight what what can be an inspiration. i want to highlight the inspiration of the i-hotel and the reason why i'm in this kind of movement. it's because it was a housing for seniors and people with disabilities, and now it turned into a senior housing. so you want to see seniors thriving. you want to see senior happy and also healthy at the same time. so thank you. good

morning, supervisors, charlie shamas with the council of community housing organizations. i wanted to thank president peskin for introducing this important measure. and members of the rules committee for expressing your support. as we have heard to many san franciscans are disqualified from the city's affordable housing programs, not because they earn too much, but because they earn too little. according to the affordable housing leadership council's report that they issued in january of this year, san francisco has produced less housing for extremely low income households because these units require additional rent or operating subsidy. so this is our chance to right that ship. our housing element calls for close to 14,000 l.a. units before 2031, without a dedicated local funding stream for operating subsidies, the city will not be able to make good on that commitment. everyone agrees that we need to better serve l.a. populations. it's in our housing element. it's in the business plan for the bay area housing finance agencies. $20

billion regional bond. it's an arena allocation, but it won't happen unless we take the step forward together. i urge you to place this charter amendment on the ballot. thank you. good morning, supervisors, i'm molly goldberg. i'm with the san francisco anti-displacement coalition and want to thank you all for your support of this fund, i, we represent dozens of tenant serving organizations in san francisco and any tenant clinic in the city. if you talk to them, will say that they regularly have clients coming in who, qualify for or have the displaced tenant housing preference because of an ellis act or an owner move in eviction but have not been able to use it for years because of the shortage of available units that they qualify for. and i just i want to be clear that we also from looking at the cases across of all of our clinics, the people who are regularly targeted for ellis and owner

move in evictions are seniors people with disabilities, long term residents living in their units for decades. those are the people who are much more likely to receive one of these evictions. and then are not eligible for the, housing that they should be getting a preference for because of a lack of affordable units. so we want to thank you for this. the support of this, important intervention to ensure that the resources we are putting towards affordable housing in the city are available to the long term residents we're seeking to stabilize. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors, my name is curtis bradford, and i'm the community organizing manager for the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation part of the tenderloin people's congress. and i'd also like to say more specifically, i'm a beneficiary of what was a housing subsidy

that actually helped me when i was homeless and disabled. it was a housing subsidy that allowed me to stabilize, rebuild my life and move on. and i don't think there would have been any well, there wouldn't have been any other way to remain in the city or to get off the streets. so i when i think about that and i think about that opportunity and how much it meant to me, i definitely want to see that expanded to as many people as we possibly can, because we need to keep people in the city because we don't know what they're going to bring. and i worry about the idea of a family living in an sro. having lived in an sro myself, i really worry about a family being forced to live in an sro and it's just not okay and we can do better. so i think that this also demonstrates that san francisco would have a commitment to inclusive and equity, inclusiveness and equity and it's a step in the right direction toward that. i don't think it solves the problem, but every tool that we can use and every step that we take in the

right direction benefits the community as a whole. so it not only benefits the families and seniors that get the direct subsidy, but it actually benefits it enables, and it supports the overall health of our communities. and i i think this is a great choice and a great way to move forward. and i'm really grateful for all of your support. thank you. good morning. supervisor angelica combined with sam, can we just want to thank you for your leadership and supporting the housing fund. as we all know, a lot of our tenants are struggling and also are facing eviction. so, definitely any tools and policy for the people that we, with you guys leadership is really important to have, across the city, you know, the past few months, we've been talking a lot about middle income. so it's really important for us as sam can, to see also our, our most vulnerable population, are being

supported by the city as well because they're the ones that are forced into living in sros in their cars, doubled up or in illegal units because they cannot find housing in san francisco. and they are the ones who are also being evicted. being harassed by their landlords. so we really encourage, your colleagues at the board of supervisor to also support this. again, thank you for your leadership on this. fred zimmer, thank you. supervisors, my elderly father was lucky. he lived in a rent controlled unit on polk street for decades, but that rent controlled unit was on the third floor. and in his last years, he couldn't get up and down the stairs. many weeks, and he couldn't afford to move into affordable senior housing because it was so much more

expensive than his rent control department, we looked and looked and looked for a place with an elevator put his name on a list. they never came up. many weeks he couldn't get out of his apartment at all, he's just one of many, something like a half of senior renters make under $20,000 a year. and it isn't shocking to me, but it's horrifying to me. the statistic that's one of the largest groups of homelessness in this city is folks over 80 years old. this is not a way we should treat our seniors. watching him made me really hate both costa-hawkins and even more the way we, fund affordable housing. so thank you, supervisors. good morning supervisors. my name is avi. i'm with the chinatown cdc. ccdc has

always supported and advocated for the need for long term operating subsidies, to be incorporated into our affordable housing structure, without such commitment, we're leaving out thousands of families, seniors and persons with disabilities many of whom you've heard from today. the gap is especially pronounced in our preservation work and aging of sros, where we know that tenants incomes are only about 15 or 20. amis without a consistent funding source, we're not able to incorporate deeper affordability in our family and senior projects in the pipeline. this measure will fill the gap between what l.a. households can afford and the operational costs required to maintain housing without destabilizing, organizations that provide such housing. so we really like to thank supervisor peskin for championing, championing this measure. and to all the members of the rules committee who are now co-sponsors let's get this on the ballot. thank you. good

morning, supervisors. my name is zachary farrell. i'm a d5 resident and i work at sam can according to hud guidelines for san francisco county, i'm considered extremely low income and i'm only able to live in san francisco because i live in a nonprofit owned housing cooperative that has voluntarily kept rents low since the 1970s. i'm very fortunate to benefit from some of the most deeply affordable housing in the city and it's the only reason that i'm able to live here. of course, i'm not the only extremely low income individual who needs deeply affordable housing to live in this expensive city. we did a housing survey with our senior age clients at sam khan and over half of them said that they had trouble paying the rent. many of them are on fixed income and they can't receive other sources of income without cutting into their stipends. they need the subsidies made available through this fund to continue living in the city and to age in place.

thank you for your sponsorship of the affordable housing opportunity fund and we urge you to continue championing this as it goes to the ballot. thank you so much. good morning supervisors. thank you to supervisor peskin for bringing this, important measure to the board and to the members of the rules committee for your co-sponsorship today. my name is meg heisler. i'm here on behalf of san francisco communities against displacement, which is part of the diverse citywide coalition of grassroots and faith based organizations, affordable housing advocates and tenant advocates who are here today. we've all long known that the city's affordable housing program leaves behind the most vulnerable among us. and so together, we're here in support of the affordable housing opportunity fund, because it's time to change the status quo, to build the deeply affordable units our communities need requires a planned and consistent commitment of funding. this measure is a meaningful step in that direction. thank you so much.

good afternoon, board of supervisors. personally the only reason i am still in the city and the only way in which i was able to obtain housing through delilah was through my ability to raise my income from extremely low to very low. once i took early social security. otherwise i would not be here and i would not be housed. i'm not sure i doubt that my situation is unique, but in any event, it's absolutely crucial that we house extremely low income people, especially families and seniors the people who make this city what it is who have made this is when often have are working and or have worked for many years to make the city what it is. please pass this. thank you. are there any additional speakers for item as stated by

president peskin, and to continue the item to the july 15th rules committee meeting. yes. on the motion to amend the matter and to continue the matter, as amended to july 15th, vice chair walton, a walton i supervisor safaí safaí i chair. ronen i ronen i. the motion passes without objection. that motion passes unanimously. thank you, mr. clerk, i would love to be able to accommodate our colleagues. supervisor preston is going to call you peskin, so if you could read item number five out of order. yes. item number five is a resolution supporting the justice for renters act, a california state proposition on the november 5th, 2024 ballot. and reaffirming the city and county of san francisco support for repeal of the costa-hawkins rental housing act. there is a request that this matter be sent out as a committee report. supervisor preston. thank you.

chair. ronen. and this resolution would put san francisco on record supporting the justice for renters act to costa-hawkins, restoring the right of cities to shape our own rent control laws. i want to thank my co-sponsors. president peskin, supervisor ronen supervisor walton, supervisor chan i especially want to thank chair ronen for calendaring this item so quickly. when it became clear last week that procedurally, this had to be sent to committee due to absences at successive board meetings, i also want to note and thank all the folks who came out when the item was before the full board, and provided a public comment already, i, i will refrain from really lengthy remarks on this. i've given some at the board but i will just for context, say that tenant groups across the state uniformly and anti-poverty organizations and affordable housing advocates, across the

state, support the justice for renters act because they support rent control. and the on the other side, the california republican party. california realtors association, california apartment association, and california yimby oppose the justice for renters act fundamentally because they oppose rent control, and despite attempts to obfuscate the issue it is pretty simple. those who support rent control support the justice for renters act, those who oppose rent control oppose the justice for renters act, the state costa-hawkins law exists for one reason and one reason only. it's to drive up rents so that the real estate industry can make more money. the costa-hawkins rental act is a special interest law written by the real estate industry for the real estate industry to maximize their profits. repealing it would allow cities to strengthen rent control. and colleagues, we i think everyone on this

committee understands and is aware. and chair ronen you've spoken eloquently to this at the full board. how rent control has kept countless people affordably housed in san francisco. but it's important to acknowledge how much more we could be doing if we didn't have the state preemption from costa-hawkins. over 100,000 homes in san francisco are categorically exempt because of arbitrary state preemption, and we cannot apply rent control to them costa-hawkins also blocks the city from imposing any limits on the rent at the start of a tenancy, allowing runaway rents that we've seen in san francisco and other major cities in california and incentivizing corporate landlords to evict long term tenants and turn units over. so with costa-hawkins repealed, we could strengthen local rent control to make housing more affordable in san francisco. again, thank you, colleagues for your

co-sponsorship. i hope the entire board will join me in supporting this resolution and supporting the justice for renters act. and after public comment, i hope you'll forward this item with recommendation. as a committee report. thank you. chair ronen, thank you. supervisor preston and i just wanted to add a statement because this is what's going on for this measure. is it just irks me to no ends because it's the reason that, you know people don't trust politicians. why politicians are perhaps one of the most hated occupations. it's because of these these games that they play. they come up with this fantastical, you know, hypothetical, something that they know is never going to happen to hide the fact that they just hate rent control. and, it's just to hear some of our colleagues play into that it really it's really it's

really sad to see, just be honest. you don't like rent control. you want to support real estate industry because they're funding your campaign, and they're powerful and they'll give you a lot of money. like, just be real about what you're why you're doing what you're doing as someone who benefited from rent control her whole life, i was born and raised in a rent controlled apartment where my mother still lives. she's been living there for my full 48 years of life, i can tell you that, there were times where we would have been homeless without rent control. and so this is really meaningful and personal for me. so don't don't lie to my face. don't don't don't pretend that you're for something for some reason that's quote unquote pro housing, give me some respect. give my family some respect. we rely on rent control like millions of families in this

state, and give us the respect to not lie to our faces supervisor walton, thank you so much, chair ronen. and thank you, supervisor preston, for bringing this resolution, to the board that really should have been something that we were able to move forward. as a body, i think just the my comments will be brief but the one thing that needs to be understood in general is that if we don't repeal costa-hawkins, rent control will go away at some point. i think that's something that people need to understand and know across the state. and continuing the ability to take away us being able to decide locally what's best for residents, will inflate homelessness and put more people out on the street, particularly and especially in cities like san francisco, the city is not affordable. and rick control is the only way that some people are still able to live here and

maintain shelter, there are high profile people who live and work in the city, and their reason that they're allowed to do that is due to rent control. this really affects our extremely low income communities. and i just can't stress enough that if we do not repeal costa-hawkins at some point, rent control will go away and that will not only increase homelessness here in san francisco, but most certainly across the state of california. thank you. we can now open this item up for public comment, because this measure has had many, hearings and a lot of public testimony at the board, i'm going to limit testimony to one minute. we have a long agenda before us. thank you. yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item

should line up to speak. at this time each speaker will be allowed one minute. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left, and a louder chime when your time has expired. can we have our first speaker, thank you victor, it's your fault, you voters out there you elect people like scott wiener who destroyed thousands and thousands and thousands of rent control units in san francisco. you elevated them to the state assembly, then to the state senate, matt haney, a good guy wait. got bought out by the real estate interests. the people that are up there making the most trouble came from san francisco and san francisco. voters elected them, now, i'm going to give you a break here guys, the biggest problem is the media, the right wing and the billionaires control the media now. and so i'm listening to very intelligent people repeat

talking points from billionaires in my house. and that's really sad. but at least let's get behind this one. let's get rid of casa hawkins. and, i is going to save all our butts. you watched and see you guys are too busy to pay attention to i. but in in five years, literally everybody in this room will be out of work. but you'll be retired like me. what are you going to do with all that time? 18 years i've been retired and i haven't wasted a minute, you know. thank you. fred. housing rights committee of san francisco. thank you. supervisors, so many tenants wouldn't need affordable housing if seniors weren't pushed out by speculators trying to make a killing because of costa-hawkins. i hope i would thank you all for the words you've said, both in

front of the full board and here. this should be a no brainer if you support tenants in san francisco. we at housing rights were also really confused by your colleagues. it felt like the twilight zone or fox news, san francisco needs to pass stronger rent control. thank you all. good morning. good morning, supervisors. alan berdahl, my comments today are directed to the supervisors that will be voting on this tomorrow. supervisors, ignore the nonsense. you just heard from supervisor walton. supervisor preston and supervisor ronen read spur. google spur and find out what their opposition to the repeal of costa-hawkins is. that way, supervisors, you'll be able to address your voters inform them. i know that 65% of your voters are renters, but read this spur. argument against costa-hawkins. thank you very much. against the repeal of

costa-hawkins rather. good morning again. my name is ann lim and i am a tenant counselor at shamann. i am here to express my strong support for the justice for renters act, to repeal costa-hawkins, and to urge all of you to consider the urgent importance of strengthening rent control in our city. costa-hawkins only serves the interest of the profit driven landlords, drives up rent for everyone, and incentivizes landlords to push long term tenants out of their units, resulting in displacement of seniors immigrants and the black and brown communities being pushed out of san francisco. rent control is important, and it has given shelter to thousands of communities, costa-hawkins will wipe this away in the future. i urge you to stand with the renters of the city. thank you very much. good afternoon supervisors. please if you have

any doubt at all, and i don't think anyone who is hearing this does that repeal of costa-hawkins is essential to this city. please just consider the case of veritas investments. i'm sure you've heard many times about the abuses in which they engage and those abuses in the is driven by the same things that their entire business model was based on or is based on, and those things are aside from the low interest rates costa-hawkins said. why? because it allows for vacancy control. indeed, they boasted to their investors that they were enhancing their revenue by achieving originally achieving internal annualized turnover of 30. and it's plain to see they can drive out long term tenants and raise the rent in. that allowed them to go forward with what they were doing. hi

everyone. my name is pizza eugenio. i'm the workforce counselor with sampson. we are also a member of race and equity in all planning sf rep sf. i'm here to express my strong support for the justice for renters act and urge all of you to consider its vital importance in addressing the housing crisis in our city. as a workforce counselor, i see a lot of our community members who needs who need jobs, also need housing support, work and housing goes hand in hand. san francisco needs workers for its economic recovery. we need to work towards creating a san francisco where all communities can imagine and secure a future without the fear of displacement due to housing that working class families cannot afford. i urge you to stand with the renters of the city and support the justice for renters act to create a more equitable and sustainable housing future for all. thank you for your consideration of this crucial matter. jordan, she. they i'm

sick and tired of fucking costa-hawkins being on the book. do you realize that if we don't have rent, good rent control people get pushed to get bit get pushed out on the street and can't afford housing, and then we have to spend taxpayer money to take care of them. i want to move us to a future where we don't need rent control, because social housing would make rent control irrelevant, but we need to expand rent control. and that's just the lulu that i have to hear two supervisors one landlord and one a bootlicker basically create some d lulu lies about how republicans from huntington beach are going to support this. that makes no fucking sense. that's never going to happen. republicans will never get behind this. and i was trained to oppose everything republicans do. as someone who grew up as a working class democrat to the realtors, i yield my time. fuck you.

hello, my name is leah mckeever. i also live in district six, so i paid attention to the supervisor race for district six back a couple of years and went to some of the local q and a's of the candidates. there and i do remember my current supervisor saying that they lived in a rent controlled apartment. i don't know if that was true or not, but it would be really surprising for that supervisor to not support something that he benefits from also, in terms of rent control we also have this going on in the country where the us department of justice, stepped into a massive antitrust lawsuit filed by dozens of tenants who are accusing a tech company's apartment software of helping landlords collude to inflate rent prices, and they were using algorithms to recommend rents to landlords across the country to maximize profits, a practice that experts say may violate violate antitrust laws. so this would also protect tenants from shitheads like this. good

morning, supervisors charlie shamann. again, our main strategy is to tackle the housing affordability crisis are the three p's. so production of new affordable units preservation to convert existing multifamily housing into permanent affordability and protections of tenants that are vulnerable to displacement. it's in the spirit of this third p protections that i'm here to express support for the justice for renters act resolution, the passage of the costa-hawkins act in 1995 enacted state preemptions to our local authority, and it created loopholes to our tenant protections that leave tens of thousands of residents unprotected from massive rent increases. rent control housing is the single largest source of affordable units in our city. more than public housing, more than affordable housing. but over 86,000 units do not have rent stabilization simply because those buildings were constructed after 1979. i urge you to support this common sense measure to enable voters to decide whether to expand the

toolbox of policies and strategies, including the third p protections in our ongoing efforts to tackle our housing affordability crisis. thank you. distinguished. distinguished board of supervisors, good morning. my name is judy baar with som can a member of san francisco anti-displacement coalition. as a case worker. i have clients who have experienced leaving their homes or apartments due to increased rent or was forced out because they're not original tenants. some of them became homeless or was forced also to leave because they can't afford the rent here and look for cheaper apartment in far places. although they work here in san francisco. the repeal of costa hagen hopkins will help close the loopholes in tenant protection and prevent mass prevent mass rent increase and displacement. so i urge you to please stand with the renters act of this city and support the justice for renters act. thank you. magandang umaga. po. good

morning supervisors. hello. my name is eliane quintana. i'm a filipino case worker with som can. i am here to express my strong support for the justice for renters act and urge all of you to consider the vital importance of addressing the housing crisis in our city. a senior came to us for assistance that had been living in their home for more than for many decades, and was a primary caregiver for their mother, who was sick for many years. unfortunately, when they passed away, they were evicted. when she passed away, they were evicted and is now unhoused and cannot find affordable housing. we need more protections for the rights of tenants who are seniors, people with disabilities, and families in our community. majority of the families we work with have been struggling because of their rent and that have increased substantially, and now are afraid that they cannot afford their rent and are at risk of being evicted. by passing this measure, we can work towards creating a san francisco where all communities can imagine and

secure a future without the fear of displacement due to unaffordable housing. we need to support and protect the rights of seniors people with disabilities. thank you. good morning again, supervisors. my name is amalia and i'm a housing rights community advocate at the asian law caucus. we are here today as members of sf, adc to support the justice for renters resolution and to support a costa-hawkins repeal. costa-hawkins created the backdrop for our case against the landlord stock management. we represented elderly monolingual chinatown sro tenants, many of whom who had lived in their units for a decade or more, paying far below market rate rent. our clients felt pushed out by new rules and practices like fines confiscation of laundry, hung out to dry and english only notices and leases. meanwhile, other sro units in the building were being marketed for rents over $1,000 as perfect for students and professionals. because costa-hawkins perversely emboldens landlords to push out

long term tenants because there's a significant profit to be made, cities need tools to allow more rent stabilized housing and set vacancy controls. we urge the board to pass the justice renters resolution and continue san francisco long standing support for the repeal of costa-hawkins. thank you. hello again. supervisors molly goldberg with the anti-displacement coalition. we did not plan to have to come to talk about this issue to the board when supervisor preston introduced this measure, we thought it would go the way of all of the other votes on costa-hawkins over the years with this board, which is historically, the board has understood the importance of repealing this real estate backed measure to kill rent control, has understood that this measure has been a the repeal of this measure has been a priority of the tenant movement since it was passed. after over a decade of

continuous lobbying by the real estate industry to hamper rent control when they couldn't kill it and they couldn't kill it because of the wide and deep popularity of rent control everywhere that it exists in the state, and so we are surprised that we have to be here but as you can see, it is not hard for us to bring a lot of people to talk about the importance of this because every single day in our clinics, we see the impacts of this measure. thank you for your time. good afternoon supervisors. my name is david george johnson. i live proudly in the castro here where it's very expensive to live. one of my top expense probably my top expense is rent. i'm in support of rent control. i'm here to voice my support and support all of my fellow san franciscans constituents. i

cannot even believe we're in 2024 and we are talking once again about rent control. san francisco's an awesome place to live, but slowly but surely we are being kicked out. i urge you to support rent control and all of us constituents. hello, my name is theresa imperial. i'm the director of build housing program. i'm here urging you to support for justice renters act resolution. this really important resolution for san francisco to have a big say as 65% of the residents here are renters. san francisco anti-displacement coalition from the very beginning of its existence in 2013, has been trying to repeal the costa-hawkins, and this is a really important and our different times that san francisco anti-displacement coalition has also tried to fight the ellis act evictions and repeal it. so it's really

important for san francisco for san francisco to vote, to say yes on rent control and to repeal costa-hawkins. thank you. hello. my name is theresa douglas, and i'm from san can and i'm their tenant. outreach and educator. it's a really hard, you know, difficult, you know, to deal with tenants who are really in need, you know, real rent and affordable housing. we now have tenants doing outreach, calling us, you know, that they can't afford their unit anymore because they their rents were increased. so personally, with me, my family would not have been actually in our home without, dean preston without the san francisco tenderloin law clinic. some can. and the san francisco land trust. we wouldn't be in our home. how? my big question is, how did we ever san francisco

get into this rut in this situation? can you please help us? we actually had hard time. you know, choosing who to actually vote. you know, for representative, representative politicians who will really sincerely and not change. thank you. good morning supervisors. my name is janet daniels and i'm here to support the justice for renters act. costa-hawkins as you have heard my story, i am a product of homelessness here in the city because of eviction and i have worked all my life. but rent is so high that causes me to live on the street. but i have survived. i just wanted to urge you guys to please support the renters coalition and help us working class to remain in

our house and work diligently for the community and for the united states of america. thank you. hello supervisors. my name is mia satya, i've worked as a case manager, with homeless people and unemployed people for many years. i've seen firsthand a lot of the struggles and challenges a lot of homeless folks might not have become homeless had they had the opportunity to have a rent controlled unit, and, you know now i work at senior and disability action, and we know that a lot of seniors and folks with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by costa-hawkins, i don't know what to say that hasn't already been said. i will say you know, i do have i do i'm fortunate enough to live in a rent controlled unit now and one of my closest friends, is has a disability and

has lived in a rent control unit for many years and had that rent control unit not existed? i don't think it's an exaggeration to say that he would no longer be with us, and that's just sad to think about, so, yes, support the repeal. hi, my name is axel and i'm a senior. i'm a senior. and disability action. you know the only reason i have survived homelessness, mental and physical health challenges is because i have an affordable, rent controlled sro room. this has allowed me to stay stable through my health challenges with the unaffordability of the housing market, i would still be homeless, sick, and dying of catastrophic illness if i was navigating market rate housing where the rent goes up exponentially. we know that many seniors and disabled people live on fixed incomes and can benefit from rent control. to keep housing more affordable and stop displacement, please pass the justice for renters act. thank

you. hello, my name is maya scott chang, and i'm a peer advocate with senior and disability action and a person with lived experience of houselessness in the bay area. i lived in san francisco for many years and left in april of 2002 to move to the east bay with my former partner of 23 years, and stayed in a quite dangerous and inaccessible home and family due to the fear of homelessness around domestic violence. and as i said earlier, it took me over three years to find accessible, affordable housing as a domestic violence survivor with an emergency housing voucher. so please, please, you know, people come from all over the world to

san francisco because we are a beacon of progressive values and innovative ideas. and as a 58 year old going elder, you know it's terrifying to see how many of my loved ones are unhoused. thank you. hello again. my name is itzel romero, and i'm with senior and disability action which is a member organization of the san francisco anti-displacement coalition. i'm here to express my strong support for the justice for renters act and urge all of you to consider its vital importance in addressing the housing crisis in our city. the justice for renters act is a necessary step to repeal costa-hawkins statewide, which has led to the displacement of many tenants and created unaffordable housing conditions by supporting this measure, we can empower local jurisdictions to enact and enforce regulations on rental housing and allowing them to address the specific needs of

their communities. i urge you to stand with the renters of this city and support the justice for renters act to create a more equitable and sustainable housing future for all. thank you for your consideration on this crucial issue. hello supervisor. my name is ramon bonifacio, a tenant councilor with south of market. community action networks can and a member organizations of the san francisco anti-displacement coalitions. i had the privilege of working closely with tenants who have faced various challenges in our city's housing market, and i'm here to express my strong support and also urge you to support the justice for renters act. as a tenant councilor, i have witnessed firsthand the detrimental effects of costa-hawkins in our community, i have seen the impact on tenants who have faced major rent increase on or have

been forced out of their homes simply because they are not the original tenants or their unit was built after 1979, or they live in a single family home. i urge you to stand with the renters of the city and support the justice for renters act and it is essential for safeguarding the rent of the rights of the tenants and addressing the housing crisis by passing these measures. speaker time has elapsed. thank you. good afternoon, supervisor raymond castillo, tenant councilor for some sort of market community action network. also a member of anti-displacement coalition. i just want to say that i really hope that you guys stand with us in supporting the justice for renters act, and repealing costa-hawkins, because i know in paper it would say that it's just a rent increase, but it's not. the reality is it is being

used to evict low income families. it is being used to evict, seniors, people with disability, people who has been living in their house, in their home for a long time. it is being used as a form of eviction. it is not just a rent increase. so please stand with us in repealing costa-hawkins. stand with the people of san francisco. stand with the renters. stand with all of us here. you already heard it. it's expensive to live in the city so please stand with us and repeal costa-hawkins. good morning, supervisor zachary farrell d5 residents, can every day at our office, we hear the same stories from our clients about how landlords harass and try to evict low income, long term tenants because they know that after those tenants have been displaced, they can then raise the rent to market rate and increase their profits. our current legal structure does nothing to disincentivize or penalize this behavior, and it's because of state laws like costa-hawkins and the ellis act

that prevent our city from passing the laws that our tenants need and deserve eliminating coastal hawkins and strengthening rent control are necessary to solve our housing affordability and homelessness crisis. that's why i urge you to support the justice for renters act so that low income californians like myself can continue to live in the cities that we love and call home. thank you so much. hello supervisor. my name is angela cocoband and i'm with sam khan. we also have a letter here from different organizations in the city who is urging you to sign on to the justice for renters act. we are a member of jobs with justice who has 30 plus member organization of union labor and community organization who represent hotel, restaurant retail and service workers domestic workers, nurses teachers, city workers, seniors, people with disabilities, tenant

and student. we're all here to say please, sign on and support the justice for renters act on the november 2024 ballot. this is a really important measure. as you heard earlier, it's not just about getting rent increase, it's about making sure we're protecting all of our tenants who are vulnerable to being evicted. you just voted on a measure earlier to support tenants, please continue supporting them as well through this. thank you. my name is chaya french, i am the director of housing and transit organizing at senior and disability action, and we are proud to be a member of the anti-displacement coalition, i'm in support of the justice for renters act, and people with disabilities and seniors are

particularly affected by displacement because of the lack of accessible housing. and so any effort to make it more likely that people can stay in their homes. we strongly support rent control, we are in support of thank you. are there any additional speakers who would like to provide public comment on item number five? item number five? there are no additional speakers. public comment is now closed. supervisor safaí. thank you. chair ronen, i just wanted to say a few words of why i support this measure. today. i want to use a real life example that we experienced in my district a few years ago. we had 4830 mission street, which is a 27 unit building. that back in 19 excuse me back in 2018, worked with meta to purchase the building and preserve a building as affordable housing and taking it off the speculative market.

and why did we need to do that for many reasons. but one of the ones was that the building was built in 1990, and it was not rent controlled. there were 27 families there, it had been listed as a rare opportunity to own, quote, a rare opportunity to own a non rent controlled building in san francisco, making residents susceptible to rent increases that would have been dramatic and it would have been massive displacement. at the time, the building was predominantly households of filipino and latino descent. they were multigenerational seniors to children and grandchildren, parents most of whom were working families. the average american average median income was between 50 and 70 and if we had not been able to purchase the building through the small sites program, all of them would not have been able to

afford the market rent. and so this was this is just one example. this is something that happens in san francisco throughout our city. and it's because of the because of costa-hawkins and some of the ambiguity. i think it's very clear, when we passed our laws here, the intent was 1979 was the starting point. but we're almost 50 years away from that date, and that's something that absolutely could be adjusted with the repeal of costa-hawkins. that would make a lot of sense. and i think that overall and i think i heard supervisor preston say over 100,000 people in our city, more are impacted by that. that's almost one eighth of our city that are living in housing that could be and is, could be jeopardized. the thing that the thing that i think causes a lot of concern for people is the

idea of applying this to new construction, we've had those conversations in the past, and president peskin is here. he and i have had those conversations. and as the former chair of the retirement board, which we will be getting into, actually former president of the retirement board, and we will be transitioning our conversation into the to many of the retirement amendments that are before us. it's over $33 billion fund. i can tell you with certainty nothing to do with costa-hawkins. but everything to do with our cost of doing business in san francisco. the amount of money that is even investigating investing in san francisco has gone to a trickle. and so we have to be very careful before we talk about applying rent control to new construction, that's a conversation that we can have in the future. but today it's really about whether or not this

is something that the voters of the state of california can have a conversation about. i think that it makes sense to have that conversation. i think that we should allow the voters in the state of california to have that conversation, and then we can also have further conversations about what would make sense in san francisco, if we were allowed to make those adjustments. but i appreciate comments from my colleagues, and so i will be supporting this resolution today. thank you. thank you so much. supervisor safaí, i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendation as a committee report. yes. on the motion to recommend as a committee report, vice chair walton walton i, supervisor sapphire safaí i chair. ronen i ronen i. the motion passes without objection. motion passes unanimously. thank you mr. clerk. can you go back to item number four? item number

four is a charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to establish a commission streamlining task force, charged with making recommendations to the mayor and the board of supervisors about ways to modify, eliminate or combine city appointed boards and commissions to improve the administration of city government. require the city attorney to prepare charter amendments to implement the task force's recommendation related to charter commissions consideration by the board of supervisors, and authorize the task force to introduce an ordinance to effectuate the recommendations related relating to appoint of boards and commissions codified in municipal code, which ordinances shall go into effect within 90 days unless rejected by two thirds. vote of the board of supervisors at an election to be held in november 5th 2024. thank you. and i wanted to thank president peskin for sticking around. and allowing us to change the order of items. president peskin, do you have any comments? i do not. we made some minor technical amendments

at the last meeting, so it had to sit for a week and if this body sees fit, i would be delighted if it were sent to the full board with a positive recommendation. okay, great. and since we already held public comment, do we need to hold public comment on this item again? since there's been no changes, we do. okay, let's open this item up for public comment. yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time. chair ronen how much time we'd like to provide for each public comment since we already heard public comment twice on this let's do one minute. each speaker will be allowed one minute for public comment, thank you. this is, an opposing measure to mark farrell's measure. measure, farrell wants to be caesar coming in. and first of all, he wants to get rid of, get rid of some of these nasty things like the board of appeals and all this, that interfere with the power of the mayor. usually when you have opposing measures like this,

come before the voters. the voters vote them both down, which, just to get rid of farrell's measure is a good thing. folks, we need oversight. is that a minute that 30s 30s. oh, wow. terrific. we're steaming here. anyway, this is a battle of two measures. one guy wants to be caesar, and the other guy's already the napoleon of north beach, and i'm backing that one. good morning supervisors. alan burdell here. supervisor peskin is lying about together sf's charter amendment. he's lying. supervisor peskin is not telling the truth. he's introducing this competing measure here today to confuse the public at the ballot box the same way he did with mayor's prop d back in 22. the truth is, together, sf's charter amendment to slash the number of commissions here in san

francisco is a research backed charter amendment that in just a few short months, more than 80,000 san franciscans have signed their name to. while the together sf measure and supervisor peskin's measure both create a task force. supervisor peskin measure gives that task force of unelected folks the power to make law, and it gives them no legal requirement to actually create a maximum number of commissions. reject peskin's measure. jordan again, she they i am actually a former commissioner myself, although from an advisory backwater, but i just want to say that, these together s.f. ghouls just keep lying and lying and we shouldn't be prescriptive on the number of commissions. i do believe that if this came out today, i would vote yes, came out today and went to the full board and, went to the ballot. i would vote yes. however, i think that basically

we could have a hearing to like determine like what needs to be realigned, what needs to be done. i'm one of the few people i may be the only person to say who has both served on the commission been a consequential commissioner, and called for the city for that same commission i set on to be dissolved. so i think that there's a need for a commission reform. but like, but together s.f. is much worse. and i don't know how much this is going to do. so thank you very much. thank you. are there any other speakers for public comment on item number four? there are no additional speakers. public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a motion to send this item to the full board, with positive recommendation on the motion to recommend vice chair walton, a walton i supervisor safaí safaí i chair ronen. i ronen i that motion passes without objection. motion passes unanimously. thank you. can you please read item number six? item number six is a

charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to allow registered nurses who are or to become members of the san francisco employee retirement system and have worked an average of 32 hours or more per week for at least one year to purchase up to three years of service. credit for time previously worked as per diem nurses and to move public safety communication personnel from miscellaneous retirement plans to the miscellaneous safety retirement plans for compensation earned on and after january first, 2025. an election be held on november 5th, 2024. thank you and supervisor safaí. thank you. colleagues, i think we've talked a little bit about this before, but this charter amendment aims to improve two things retention and the recruitment of full time registered nurses and 911 operators in our city system both of which are understaffed

right now, when we're going to have a few amendments today that talk about many, emergency personnel, firefighters, police 911 nurses every single one of them is understaffed in our city. every single one of them has been asked to do a tremendous amount of overtime. and in the case of our 911 operators, there are 20% vacancy. we are only hitting our mandated response time 71% of the time. and that's not for trying, because these folks are in many cases are working. 15, 16 18 hour shifts because of the understaffing and on the on the nursing side, many of them were hundreds of nurses short. and they too are being asked to work overtime. and they too are being asked to work in situations under staffing. and the way the city is solving this problem, in many cases with the

nurses, is hiring contracted nurses where they're paying a significant portion more than if they were hiring full time staffing. so we see in the comptroller's report that there's an estimate of around 3 to 4 million per year. but i believe, colleagues, ultimately, if we were to get to the right staffing levels, this almost would be a wash, if not a savings for our city. for the amount of money that's spent this is not something that's unique to san francisco, but i can tell you talking to nurses talking to 911 operators who will hear from today, they are at a breaking point. and so what this charter amendment does is it allows us to classify our 911 operators as emergency personnel. they are on the front lines of receiving the calls of emergency calls. and for registered nurses, this allows them, if they have been working

in a temporary classification after one year of full time employment, they can buy back three years of their time served. we want to incentivize our city from stopping using temporary nurses and contract nurses. we want to incentivize them to move people into these full time positions, and both of which are a major part of providing our safety net in our city today. so i hope colleagues i can count on your support. i hope that we can move forward with a common sense, charter amendment that will help with our emergency safety net in our city and do it in the right way by respecting the voices of 911 call operators and our nurses and we can get to the appropriate staffing levels, and we can give and offer them the benefits that they deserve. i have a few non-substantive

legislative amendments today. that we provided out and i can talk through those. i can do that after public comment, but i just wanted to thank, cecilia mangoma from the city attorney's office. i'd like to thank allison romano and karen bortnick from the sf system for their partnership, along with seiu. 1021 and my co-sponsors supervisor walton melgar and preston, for their early sponsorship of this. i don't know if we need to get into any questions on the costing at this moment. we can do it after public comment, but just thank you everyone for your hard work on this. i think this is the right thing to do at this moment. i think this is something that our city will benefit from greatly. and at the end of the day, this will improve our safety net in san francisco. thank you. thank you.

yes. let's go ahead and open this up for public comment. and then we'll have questions. yes members of the public wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time, chair ronen, how much time would you. two minutes, please. two minutes. each speaker will be allowed. two minutes. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when your time has expired. good afternoon. my name is bert wilson. i'm san francisco, 911 dispatcher for san francisco. i'd like to thank supervisor safaí for presenting this charter amendment and thank the board of supervisors for consistently supporting san francisco. 911, thank you for the dispatchers who've taken their time off. our minimum time off to show up and support this charter amendment. this room would probably be full with dispatchers, but as you know, we have to keep the city safe. we're working on a staffing

shortage. there's a lot of mandated overtime that's been given to dispatchers, as you know, the department, the city always gives a excuse that across the united states there's a shortage of dispatchers. we're concerned that we don't want to fall into, like oakland, california where federal funding is going to be denied due to this, the call answering standards not being answered correctly and timely we're asking this charter amendment of public safety as a way to incentivize and retain dispatchers. it's already hard enough to bring them on board now to hire them. and the fallout rate is more than 50% when they go through the training. it's a huge commitment. yeah, you miss out on your family. you miss out on

it on everything. because all you're doing is working with the staffing shortage, what i'm asking is hopefully that this amendment goes through to the ballot and the support of the board of supervisors during the election. time to get this passed. thank you for your time. hi. my name is valerie tucker. i'm also a 911 dispatcher. just thank you again for your continued support of our service, just making the request that we move from the miscellaneous category of clerical workers like other into the more appropriate public safety retirement. we look at this charter amendment more as a correction, to, to the, the charter amendment that our nine one dispatchers should be categorized as public safety. miscellaneous, so that we can continue to serve the city giving it what it people already

expect from us. and already think that they're getting from us under staffing is at 911 is not just an sf issue. as bert mentioned, oakland most recently was in the news and across the country, more than 70% of the 911 centers across the country are understaffed. when we look to the future, we have to ask ourselves, who's going to answer these calls? currently, we're not even replacing the members that are leaving due to retirement, and or not making it through the program. 911 dispatch has a critical role in the police, fire and sheriff's department. we even support adult probation. the key to this change is that sf needs to continue to maintain its staffing levels so that we can serve the city as it deserves and what it expects and lastly, just want to mention as, supervisor safaí had said, that most of our dispatchers wanted to be here, but due to the mandated overtime that's required by all of us, again, some of us working up to 16 hour days, they could not be here to also gain and show support for this. thank you for your time.

good morning, rules committee. nash daniels i am the labor union representative who has the privilege of working with your 911 dispatchers. i am here because i'm excited to see this long overdue legislation moving forward to the very people who rely heavily on these services, our constituents and residents of san francisco. i believe this will allow san francisco to recruit and retain qualified employees who joined the emergency services department with a mindset to serve the public until the end of their work life career. so i'm grateful and we hope that this will help keep san francisco safe. thank you. are there any additional speakers? good afternoon once again supervisors. i would like to show my support and tell our dispatchers that are severely understaffed that i do support you. i already mentioned that i

am a public servant. i work for the usps and as many of you know, we are getting robbed and attacked basically daily. almost daily. and if it weren't for dispatchers who are working tirelessly, then we wouldn't get these support and the help from police or fire whoever we may need. without the dispatchers we are also severely understaffed with our workload. for the us mail nationwide, it's not just a city of san francisco issue as well. so i show my support for the dispatch and for this amendment. thank you. are there any additional speakers on this item? there are no additional speakers. public comment is now closed. supervisor safaí thank you, so you all have the amendments that are before us on the first page. we change the date to clarifies july 4th 2025, and we do that throughout. you mean january

4th? what did i say? july 4th? oh sorry. see, i'm still thinking about july fourth. yes. january 4th, 2025. to clarify that we make that clear throughout, and we clarify on page four, the language that says prior to becoming a member of the retirement system. and on page five, prior to the effective date of retirement, and clarified no more than 80 hours, of service credit and a pay period, and then how much it plays into the annual basis. all of this is intended to say that you have to serve at least a year in the nursing category as a full time nurse, and then you can buy back time only for when you were temporary, up to three years, and there wasn't any amendments or need to make any changes on the 911 side. and as was discussed, it's essentially

we're moving them from miscellaneous to emergency miscellaneous personnel as is allowed by state law. they classify them as first responders. but we're required to make that adjustment here locally, so appreciate all the comments, all the hard work of all the people, i know that the nurses had called me this morning and i believe they'll have be here. maybe next week to say a few words. july 4th week caught a lot of people off guard, but we spent a lot of time working with them. the comptroller, the retirement board and all of the city attorney's staff. so really appreciate it. i'd like to make a motion to accept those amendments as proposed. and send this to the. oh, actually, it has to be continued for one week. continued to january to july 15th. yes, it continued for one week to july 15th. okay, i wanted to ask the comptroller if he wanted to report on the cost implications of this measure

thank you, chair ronan. members of the committee greg wagner comptroller, our draft estimate which is based on the, report from our colleagues at the retirement systems actuary, is that the cost of this measure would range from 3.8 million to 6.7 million annually in the first year, rising over time with inflation. that's, as i said entirely based on the actuarial report from retirement system. so, happy to answer questions or defer to our colleagues. great. thank you. so i am going to be supporting this measure, but not without some, heartburn, i don't know if you saw that editorial in the san francisco chronicle this morning, but it did mention that it seems like a really strange time to be making all these

fixes for different employee groups in our retirement system given that we're facing down, a significant deficit, and i've been saying the same thing for as the, as the rules chairs for, for weeks now. in fact, i had a measure, a retirement fix measure that i was going to put forward. and i never introduced it because it just didn't feel fiscally responsible. having said that, when it's before you and i have for a very, very long time believed that 911 call operators should be, moved to public safety, miscellaneous and, and, and that that is something that should have been fixed a long time ago. so now that it's before me to not support it, it doesn't make it doesn't make sense to me. so i you know, i feel compelled to support it. and i will also say

that, you know i work a lot on, health care and, and, and mental health. i work a lot with dph and, and recruiting permanent nurses has been a real big challenge for the city, for a long time. and this this is a good recruitment tool. so, you know, it's that catch 22. that that were, were put in, you know and i guess i'm not going to be here so i can just say that, i wish you all the best of luck balancing future budgets, but i do think as a matter of policy that this legislation is the right policy. the timing maybe not perfect, but the policy is the right one. so i'm going to support it, because it is the right policy, and i will turn it

back over to supervisor safaí before we take a vote on the motion. thank you. thank you chair. and i just want to underscore the point that i agree with you. it's a difficult time but at the same time, we've been making really bad decisions in the city for a really long time. and when you have a structural staffing deficit, when you see a department that is the frontline, like 911, call operators, like emergency room nurses like firefighters like, paramedics like and every single one of them has a staffing crisis, because of burnout because they're being asked to work overtime consistently. and then we're paying more for that overtime. that overtime often is time and a half for the per diem nurses. it's time and a quarter. so we're costing the system more money because of our bad decision making. and i put that squarely at the foot of the mayor's office and the inability to make those adjustments. ultimately, with departments. so

we're being asked now because we see such a flight of 911 call operators, we see a shortage of and these per diem nurses have been it's almost like they're in purgatory. they're sitting there. there's hundreds of them working in these positions, we need to transition them into these full time roles. so i appreciate what you're saying, and i understand i think each one of these is a different there's a different approach and a different reasoning. and that's part of the reason why we need to make these decisions today, because the crisis could get even worse. so thank you. i, i made a motion if we could vote on that motion on the amendments, that would be great. yes. on the motion to amend and continue the matter, as amended to july 15th, vice chair walton walton i supervisor safaí i safaí i chair. ronen i ronen i that motion passes without objection. motion passes unanimously. thank you, mr.

clerk. can you please read item number seven? item number seven is a charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to shorten to one year the period to calculate final compensation for retirement benefits for persons who have or will become members of the fire department. and on and after july 7th, 2010. calculate final compensation on the basis of average compensation earnable rather than compensation earned for persons who have or will become members of the fire department on and after july seven, 2010. change to age factor percentage for benefit calculations such that persons who have or will become members of the fire department on and after july january 7th, 2012 reach a higher age factor percentage at earlier ages and lower from 58 to 55. their retirement age, at which persons who have or will become members of the fire department on and after january 7th, 2012

and reached a higher age factor percentage and election to be held on november fifth 2024. thank you, supervisor safaí. thank you. chair. so i want to thank supervisor stefani for her leadership on this legislation and the charter amendment, and am proud to be a lead co-sponsor of this important effort. i want to thank all the firefighters here today, and all of those i've met with on my visit to several firehouses and events over the course of the last six months in particular, and i can't overstate the profound sense of gratitude and respect for the role they play in keeping our city and community safe, it's amazing to hear consistently how much firefighters endure the health concerns that they express cancer being the number one concern as it is the leading leading cause of death for firefighters. let me let me say that again. cancer is the leading cause of death for

firefighters. and there's things that we can do here in this chamber and in this city to change the outcome of their lives. and they make these sacrifices on a daily basis. so many have also expressed concerns about the quality of life, and, and their family life in the aftermath of on the job injury, cancer and cancer and trauma. so it's always been expressed despite the challenging concerns is how much they love their job. and i've seen that incredible dedication to this city. so i'm proud to continue to stand in support with the members of the san francisco fire department. earlier, we passed legislation that will replace the current turnouts that they have, which contains pfas chemicals that have had a major impact on cancer and their lives. and so this charter amendment recognizes the exceptional work that they do and aims to lessen the adverse health impacts

firefighters experiencing by allowing the members of the fire department to retire. with up to 90% of their final compensation at age 55 instead of 58, it might seem like a small adjustment, but that adjustment in years will have a direct impact on their lives and all this is done by, while the maintaining the increased contribution rates for employees imposed by prop c in 2011, so we worked on some amendments under supervisor stephanie's office, circulated those, that will result in a significant cost savings from the original estimate from the retirement board and the comptroller. so first thing is, it's going to, make an amendment to change the calculation on final compensation, based on the average compensation earned rather than the earnable, and this change was result in saving up to $1 million per year. and

secondly, i've been asked the retirement board to approve changing the amortization period of this charter. cost of this charter amendment from 15 years to 20 years. and that would allow us to save up to $600,000 a year. ultimately, the retirement board has to make a final decision on that. we've asked them to make that consideration at their next meeting, and we will continue to work with them. so at the end of the day, we're here to i think we have an opportunity to honor the service that they've committed to our city and the way that they put themselves in harm's way. and this will be a benefit not for our only for our firefighters, but for our city as a whole. thank you. chair. and i can talk more about those amendments again, if you like that. i hand it out. thank you. i wanted to give an opportunity. lorenzo rosas from supervisor stephanie's office to speak. if

he has any comments. good afternoon, chair ronan. rules committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is lorenzo rosas. i'm here on behalf of supervisor stephanie regarding this proposed charter amendment. as supervisor safaí mentioned this measure allows members of the fire department to retire with up to 90% of their final compensation at age 55, instead of 58, which empowers firefighters to be able to enter retirement with financial security without that extra three years of adverse health impacts that supervisor safaí mentioned, as. supervisor safaí also mentioned first responders with the fire department face unique short and long term health complications as aspecific result of their occupation and their brave service. one example is the carcinogenic forever chemicals that supervisor safaí mentioned which the board recognized and banned but won't take effect for a couple of years. so it will still be in their turnouts and again affecting and potentially resulting in increased cancer rates over the next couple of

years, as a result of these complications, firefighters experienced statistically higher rates of cancer, post-traumatic stress, and other severe illnesses, and these statistics, have real life consequences. in san francisco alone, our fire department has lost 300 firefighters to cancer in less than 20 years. and female firefighters in our city have a six times higher rate of breast cancer than the national average, and prolonging the career of our firefighters by an extra three years. it it translates to further heightened risks demonstrated by the positive correlation between increased age, number of injuries and worker's compensation costs. moreover these additional three years only increase exposure levels and cancer rates, as a fire department, local 798 quoted a figure of 12.3 million in increased compensation costs solely as a result of more firefighters cancer claims. so in short, this charter amendment aims to save lives of those that our city relies on to bravely

respond to emergencies at great personal risk and allow them to retire with financial security without facing the possibility of more severe health complications. supervisor stephanie has worked with supervisor safaí on these amendments to reduce some costs related to the measure that have been circulated with your offices. as supervisor safaí mentioned in short, these amendments change the word earnable to earned in the final compensation calculation, which reverts back to the definition that is currently in the charter, and approximately saves $1 million in doing so, supervisor stephanie respectfully asks for your adoption of these amendments today, and i want to thank the committee for its time, i'm here to answer any questions on behalf of supervisor stephanie and the work done so far. and i know that representatives from local 798 are here to speak in support of the measure. as well. thank you. thank you so much. and i also know that firefighter adam wood is here from the department, i wanted to give mr. wood an opportunity to

say anything i also wanted to thank you so much for sending me the information about, cancer rates and i did have a few questions. i don't know if you're the right person to ask but first. first, feel free to make any remarks you'd like to make sure. thank you. supervisor my name is adam wood. i'm the secretary of firefighters, local 798, but also the vice president of the san francisco firefighters cancer prevention foundation. and first of all, i want to thank all the members of the committee for the time you took with us this week to hear our concerns related to this initiative and to share your concerns, which we listened to. and i was, especially grateful for the creative ideas on how to reduce costs that were described by supervisor safaí. we're very cognizant of the concerns you raised under the last point. supervisor ronen, and we want to do anything we can to keep the pension system healthy and the city's finances healthy. but we have an issue here that we feel like, can't wait. what our sense is that this experiment that

became that began a dozen years ago of extending firefighters careers by 10, ran hard up against everything we learned since 2012 about cancer in the fire service, both writ large and our lived experience in san francisco writ large as demonstrated by the groundbreaking studies by the national institute on occupational safety and health. multi-year, multi-city study released in 2014 which demonstrated firefighters have an elevated risk for 11 different types of cancer relative to the general population and the designation in 2023 by the international association for research on cancer of firefighting. as a group one carcinogen in san francisco. just in the past month, we've added two new cases, one active member and one retired member to the 205 active and retired firefighters who have been diagnosed with cancer

just in the last six years. one of those members is going through surgery today. we're at the point where we have to assert that a lifetime of service to the citizens of san francisco should not be capped with a battle against occupational cancer. and if there's any step, we can take to remove the incentives for firefighters staying on this job any longer than they need to that's what we're trying to accomplish here today. with your help, and to try to do it in a fiscally responsible way. but we just feel that the toll that this has taken on our members lives, on the lives of our members families, has to be addressed. and it's not the most ideal of economic climates to address this issue but we really can't wait. lives are on the line as as a secondary factor. this measure also addresses the corrosive role of unequal benefit tiers, which are disruptive in any workforce. but especially in a workforce that

relies on teamwork, often in life threatening situations. when we step into a burning building, fire treats us all the same. this measure goes a long way towards establishing some equality between the firefighters of my generation and the newer firefighters we have in the department, many of whom are here today. so it's that's a secondary criteria, but it's a really important criteria for the close knit working group that's typical of fire departments around the country and especially true in san francisco. so i'll answer any questions you have. sure. thank you so much, so you you i, i, had the opportunity to meet with you in some of your colleagues including the president of your union. and the meeting really impacted me. i was going in to the meeting not believing i was going to support this measure.

not because i don't care deeply about firefighters because, man, i admire what you all do and how hard your job is, but more because i didn't want to open the door to starting to, undo pension reform, which, you know if we have never done in the first place, that would fine. but every group of workers feels the same way. it's not fair that they, you know, get to retire before me and all of that. and so i didn't understand why there would be a different policy reason when it comes to firefighters. until you explain to me, all the data on the cancer rates, which are terrifying and awful and i'm wondering and you sent me some great, great data and some statistics, but i'm really wondering what those statistics look like versus other employee groups like. so for example, you said currently there are 200 active and retired 200 plus

active and retired employees with cancer. we've we've had 205 active and retired firefighters diagnosed with cancer since 2018. since 2018, i would i would love to just see a couple control groups like compared to i have no doubt, you know and it makes sense to me and we have the facts that, that firefighting is a number, a category one carcinogen. so obviously especially firefighters, you know, the fire department is made up of firefighters and paramedics, but especially firefighters are exposing themselves to horrific chemicals and carcinogens. and it's scary. it's a problem. and we've got to do everything we can to protect you all from that. and so i'm very, very sympathetic to that. i also know that unfortunately with all the chemicals we're all exposed to, that cancer rates are just much more prevalent nowadays than they used to be. and i would

just love to see some data like let's take a couple other employee groups and just see what like is that abnormally high or is that is that commonplace nowadays for employees because cancer rates are just so high in society? i mean, so many people i love and know that aren't firefighters have cancer. and they're very healthy individuals. so i between this hearing and the next, if there was any way and i don't know how or where to get that data, i'm looking at the comptroller's office. i'm not sure if you would have that, but if you looked at similar size departments just so we can have some control groups to understand, to be able to look at this data in context, chair ronen, greg wagner, comptroller we do not have that data. my best thought would be the health service system, although there may be privacy issues, privacy issues, but they they may have some method of providing

statistics because you have this data because you have created this group that goes out and proactively, you know, gets this data, which makes sense given what a what a scary, you know, possibility, you know, risk this is of your profession. but i'm just wondering if, you know, if there's any comparative data that we can look at. i can i can look for some between now and the next hearing. i know there there should be some at a meta level. i don't know if i can get it down to san francisco employees, but i could probably get it at a meta level. and what the reason is, you're right. everyone's exposed to the same chemicals. we're exposed to, but we're exposed to them in their most toxic state. absolutely. right. so what for many people is a lifetime of chronic exposure for us is a series of intense acute exposures, which is why we always describe ourselves as the canary in the coal mine. what we're the cancers we're experiencing are assigned to everyone that the environment we're working in is not safe. just like the canary

dropping in the coal mine was the first sign that the coal mine was unsafe. so that's i think i can find some national data that might give comparable numbers to other professions if that would be helpful. it would. otherwise it's just because otherwise i don't know what to compare this data to. right. and the numbers are high. they're alarming. they're worrisome. and i'm like is that just being alive in the, you know, in, in on planet earth today or is that is that specific to the occupation? and that's what, what what i wanted to understand, but we'll we have time for that. and i and i want to appreciate and just say, i mean, it just makes sense from an from a logical deduction standpoint that you that especially firefighters are, are are faced with, just exposure to, to very, very dangerous chemicals and it's a, it's a

very terrifying aspect of the job. the other question i wanted to ask you is, i do you think that, being able to retire at 55 and, and reach your full pension, will urge be incentive enough for, firefighters to retire earlier and thus hopefully be safer from cancer risk? i think. so i think the experience my pension tier and the tier of my generation is set at 55. right. and what we find on average is that age is usually the determining factor on when people are choosing to retire, not necessarily time of service, so that they're leaving without their full maximized pension, but that age is an important time when they realize their broken down past the point of really being a productive member of the department. and so i think that would be the same for our newer firefighters when they hit that age, which is still some time from now. okay, great. well, thank you so much.

thanks for following up from our meeting and sending that information. and if you do find more before we vote this out, i would i would really appreciate that. thank you. thank you, we can now open this item up for public comment. yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed two minutes thank you very much, that's 55. that's ridiculous. i was in the military six years. if i'd have stayed, i could have retired at 38. you're complaining about somebody 17 years old? i was a firefighter for five years, i fought fires. you had to crawl out on your hands and knees because, enough of the toxic material got through your rubber mask to knock you down. i fought the biggest structural fire in american history. the overland and overland park, the, us records center there, the firefighters deserve every dime that they get. and 55 is not bad

at all. if military is 38. now on the other end i have a complaint with engine company 36. they think i'm not an american and they think they are okay. my family's been in the military since george washington and that's truth. i fly a big american flag inside my house, covering all triple bay windows on the top of them and all that. i deserve it. i get an engine company 36 comes by with a big american flag hanging on the back. now that might not mean much to you, except they're being arrogant and thinking they deserve that more than san franciscans. but the fact of the matter is where they got that flag mounted. there's a rig called a skid, and you have a wooden bar running through folded up holes, and you hit the fire scene. and if you need to get in right away, you pull that skid and it lands on the ground. well, that flag is right in the middle of the way of the skid and the and the wind blowing that. can you imagine that on a fireground? i complained to the

fire chief about this two years ago. she said, i'll take care of it. engine 36 still cruises under my window with their flag going, and they ring their bell so that they know that the arrogant bastards one. take down your flag. you don't deserve it anymore than i do. good afternoon, chair ronan. members of the rules committee christian viero of egypt, local 21. here to raise some important questions the committee may wish to consider, to ponder the proposed measures. first. what is the total estimated increases to the unfunded liability of the retirement system for all contemplating pensions? enhancements combined. second what is the forecasted increase to employer contributions due to all come to play in pension enhancements combined? additionally what is the estimated funded ratio of sf pension system? should all contemplated pension

enhancements be enacted? additionally, what is the forecasted delay to employee contributions reductions due to all contemplated pension enhancements combined? what is the forecasted increases to employee contributions and how many years are we expected for the increases to be enacted? we understand the intent of these charter amendments and others. however, we have concerns regarding the due diligence that will be required to understand the fiscal impact to both the city as well as to employee contributions. and we hope those will be considered either today as well as prior to the full board meeting. thank you. gooternoon, chair ronan. supervisor safaí. supervisor walton, thank you so much for your time and consideration at this hearing, my name is sam gebler. i'm the vice president of local 798. we we are very excited to be here and to do

this for our members firefighters are an institution in san francisco. we've been here for over 150 years helping the citizens and visitors and everyone possible, not only do we respond to emergencies, we're also incredibly productive members of the community through our various charities, our toy program, all of the things that we do for the city, we're a unique work group in that we're here for an entire career. we don't just come and go, we're here for 30 years. if we're lucky, and being a part of the city, we greatly appreciate your support in helping take care of us so that we can live as long and healthily as possible, as far as this ballot measure, as was pointed out earlier, we've done as good as we can to trim the costs and we're confident that our our measure will not increase the contributions of, of any public sector employee.

again, if you guys have any questions, you always know where to reach us, but the firefighters, as a whole greatly appreciate you. stepping up and taking care of us when we need it. thank you. good afternoon. supervisors, my name is dan casey. i am a very recently retired member of the san francisco fire department and local 798, and i am also a san francisco resident and voter. so i have a couple of different perspectives on this measure, as adam eloquently stated, the increased health concerns are very real. over the course of my over 30 year career, i've lost far too many friends and colleagues both to injury and to illness, either during their service or very soon after their service. i myself suffered a traumatic injury quite a few

years ago, early in my career, from which i was very lucky to recover, so that is a very real consideration. i also have the perspective of having come into the department when we were a two tier pension system, and i came in in the lower tier, and we understood that coming in there was no choice in it. but it does have an effect on the workforce and we successfully brought a measure forward to the voters, in the early 90s to rectify that. so we are very appreciative of your support in allowing us to bring that to the voters now and allow the voters to decide on this measure. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors distinguished members of council and everyone that came here to join us today. my name is mario flaherty. i'm a fourth generation firefighter. i am a

homeowner here in san francisco and it is an honor to serve this city and to live in this city. i spent a majority of my life on teams, some of which were winning teams, some of which were losing teams. the biggest thing that the losing teams had in common is the locker room dynamic. when the locker room dynamic wasn't right, everything fell apart. what does that have to do with firefighting, you ask? well, as dan casey just mentioned, we are under different tier systems and that sprouts confusion, that sprouts animosity and that sprouts, work work dynamics that oftentimes don't function. so with this ballot measure and this initiative, we're hoping to continue to be a winning team for you guys here in san francisco. and we appreciate your time. thank you. hello supervisors. my name is stan lee. i'm the president of the asian firefighters association

and a longtime member of local 798, i'm speaking in support of this ballot measure because i believe that we should be treating our younger members with equality and fairness because members like me, dan and adam, we got in. i got 29 years in the service and i would like to see that the younger generation will be able to enjoy their retirement longer, instead of having to fight possible, you know, case of cancer or something else, ptsd or some behavioral health issue. so i am a strong support of this measure. thank you. good afternoon supervisors. my name is steve summers. i'm with san francisco fire department. i've been in the city for 30 years of my life in district five and district nine, so just as ronen

was asking, i was looking at some of the niosh studies, and we are 9% higher more likely more likelihood to get cancer than the general population. and a 14% likelihood of dying from it and two thirds of all our line of duty deaths last year were all from cancer. so i would impress on the supervisors to push this forward and support us as we support you every day. thank you. good afternoon supervisors. my name is sheena rai, director here with local 798. i stand before you today to again reiterate the importance of this, this, going to the ballot, this november, our members continue to suffer from work related injuries from cancer, and spend time away from their family. enough as it is, to be in a profession that we may not be coming home. we may

not be seeing our families again. we may not be interacting with our friends again is tough enough as it is, and for us to not be able to spend time in retirement with the people that supported us while we sacrificed for 30 years, or even more. like some of the people behind me have, would be a shame and we would greatly appreciate the opportunity to go to the ballot and reduce the division among the pension tiers here in san francisco. thank you for your time. hello. i'm, jeremiah caddigan. i'm on the director, board of directors for 798 and a, firefighter over at truck 11. i think everyone could agree that, running into burning buildings at 58 is asking a lot as secretary wood said, all the research we have shows that as we get older, these acute exposures are more and more harmful to us. as our bodies get

older, we're less able to, to fight off these these exposures we have. and it increases our risk of cancer, back in the 80s prize for professional boxing. sanctioning bodies realized that, the 13th through the 15th round, that was when most of the life altering or life ending events were happening to professional fighters. so, it's a very similar situation. and as a city, if we could, operate with that lease, the integrity of, fight promoters, you know it'd be a good thing. thank you. good afternoon. supervisors. my name is i gillquist. i'm a san francisco firefighter with 24 years on the job. i just want to stress a point that hasn't been talked to too much is that, we're talking about the charter amendment for this age, going

back 255. i'm at 55, but many young members are at 58, this is also 30 years of service across the board. so you're talking about people that are doing 30 years, whether they're 55 or 58. that makes a huge difference for us. i think that what's important in this issue, in this amendment is that this is a win win. it's a win for us because we get to retire at a younger age, enjoy our families, be healthier and stay healthier. but it's also a win for the city because what you do long term is you incentivize a younger department. you're incentivizing guys that are 23, 24, 25 to come in as opposed to guys that are maybe wanting to come in at 25 but say, i might as well wait till i'm 28, so that at 30 years i'm gone, you're incentivizing a younger department and a younger, aggressive department is a win for the for the citizens of san francisco. so it's a win across the board. and, yeah. so i thank you for supporting this. and thank you again. good afternoon. my name

is tim finch. i'm, with san francisco local 798, i'm also a paramedic with the san francisco fire department. and i want to thank you folks for supporting this measure in the realignment of the tiers in terms of the age from 58 to 55. we talk about in particular the, the cancer rates and the amount that we're exposed to, you know, with cancer of course, it's well with exposure in particular, it's all about time. and intensity, three extra years of being exposed to these intense smoking environments. you know, and this is stuff that we want to go into. and then because we need to go into, saving your homes, saving your businesses, helping your family members, you know, when these places are on fire. we are the ones that are trained and the experts that go in and develop these to reduce the amount of damage to you know, maintain the health of your family. realigning all that down the 55, to reduce the

exposure to cancers. as you've heard mentioned before, we've had 205 people since 2018, both active and retired. and what those folks, when they develop cancer have found that they now have a new full time job, their full time job is coordinating their medical care you know, us medical care, you know, we can get into another public comment just on that alone. but those folks have to coordinate with their primary care their oncology, their oncologists, and re going for radiation treatment. are we going for chemotherapy treatment? that's when you're retired. that's a new full time job that you're having when you're an active member of the department. now you're not serving the city. and the need that we need you in now you're focused on on your medical care and reducing that you know, i think would be a win for everyone across the board. thank you. good afternoon supervisors. my name is floyd rollins. i am the president of a local 798. i'm honored to stand here before you, thanking you for all of the work that you all have done, for this very important piece of legislation

thank all of the other organizations. the the comptroller's office and the retirement board for the work that they have done, with regard to this, this is groundbreaking legislation for us. and just to put it into perspective, we have been down these roads before in terms of needing to come to the board, needing to take legislative action to address issues that we have discovered through the work of our cancer prevention foundation, through the work that the international association of firefighters has done over the years, because to paint a tragic picture about how we used to have to fight when a firefighter was diagnosed with cancer, the claim was immediately denied. and firefighters in the midst of going through radiation treatments in the midst of fighting for their lives had to come in to firehouses and comb through the journals to catalog 100 fires that they had been to. and if you are talking about a

situation, a predicament, a matter that did nothing to help a member mentally did nothing to help a member physically and not to mention the toll that that took on the workforce seeing people that we had worked with sitting there fighting for their lives. so we've had to do this before. and so the research and work that has been done and what we've discovered since we did the pension reform in 2012, we are now at another important point where we have to take a step to make things better for the lives of those who have come after us and the younger folks who have come in the department, so they don't have to endure the same battles that many of our members who lost their lives and are continuing to fight for their lives have to endure. so we thank you for your support, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on this measure. thank you. thank you. are there any additional members of the public who would like to mas now closed,

would you like to make the motion supervisor safaí, yes. so i handed out the amendments that were drafted by supervisor stefanie's office on page one, they strike final compensation based on earnable average earnable. and then if you go to page five, it strikes the word earnable. and page seven, it strikes the word earnable. and i think that's the last, change that was necessary, if i'm not mistaken. yes. so i'd like to make a motion to, to accept those amendments and then and then continue to the item to july 15th, july 15th. wonderful. and before we take a vote on that, i just realized i didn't give an opportunity to the controller, to report on the cost impacts of this measure.

chair and members of the committee, our estimated cost is again based on the retirement systems actuarial report, the estimated cost is 10.2 million in the first year of implementation. that grows over time to 21.2 million by fiscal year 2040, 41. and then drops back down as the unfunded liability is paid off with the amendments that are introduced. i believe our estimate is approximately 1 million in savings from the deletion of the earnable, language, and to the extent that the retirement board determines that it wishes to use a 20 year amortization period versus 15 as contemplated in the existing actuarial report would have short term savings of

approximately 600,000. the cost over time in years would would grow, as you're amortizing the cost over a longer period of time. so you would have short term savings and a long term cost in years 15 to 20. that would otherwise not occur. okay. thank you, supervisor safaí. yes, i just, just wanted to thank the members from 798 for coming out and sharing their own personal stories. i know that can't always be easy, this is a life or death job, so i really appreciate that. and you know, also just want to, you say short term, through the chair to the controller. that's the first 15 years that we would save 600,000, a year. so if we added those two together, 1.6 million in savings on an annual basis, that would drop the annual cost down to approximately 8.6 million. in the beginning periods, and then it would grow

in the later years as the system as our system will be moving out of recession and become more fundable. so i just wanted to underscore that point. but thank you for everyone coming out today. we'll make these amendments now. it will be continued for one week, and then it will be voted on, out of committee next monday. and to the full board the following day. okay. thank you. we can now have our roll call. vote yes on the motion to amend and continue as amended, to july 15th 2024. on that motion, vice chair walton walton i. supervisor safaí i safaí i chair ronen i ronen i that motion passes without objection. motion passes unanimously. thank you. thanks for coming out, mr. clerk, can you please read item number eight? item number eight is a charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to establish minimum staffing levels for sworn officers of the police department for a period from july 2025 through july

2028, requiring the police commission to set the minimum staffing levels based on a report from the chief of police and at least every three years thereafter, requiring the police commission to approve and submit to the board of supervisors a budget for the police department that accounts for minimum staffing levels of sworn officers, and establishing a new voluntary deferred retirement option program for the period from july 2025 through july 2030 for eligible members of the police department that allow those members to earn additional deferred compensation in the retirement system for up to 60 months in exchange for agreeing to perform patrol or investigative work for an election to be held on november 5th, 2024. thank you so much. and the author supervisor dorsey has joined us. supervisor dorsey, thank you so much, chair ronen and to members of the rules committee, i know you've had a lengthy meeting already so i'm going to do my best to keep my remarks brief. i also

welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you may have now or after public comment, i have a proposed amendment i would like to submit but first i'd like to walk through the measure and then have i have provided hard and electronic copies of this amendment to committee members and to staff, i'll endeavor to walk through the red line version page by page as quickly as feasible. before i begin, i do want to express my gratitude to my primary coauthor on this president, aaron peskin, for his wise counsel and as well as the input of other co-sponsors. i think with a more complete perspective on all the ballot measures that are going to be going to voters, i want to make sure we're being mindful of the collective costs in an election in which we're asking voters to make a lot of important investments. so to the extent we can do our part to minimize the possibility of sticker shock i thought it was important that we do so. so i'll first outline changes to the police staffing section of the charter. in the interest of focusing this measure squarely on addressing sworn officer retention, we have

removed provisions that would have reintroduced a formal minimum staffing number into the charter. proposition e, which was authored by former board president norman yee back in 2020, gave us a meaningful process to periodically assess the city's public safety needs through a biennial workload assessment. instead of returning a minimum staffing number to the charter, we propose the following changes to prop e's existing process, one. in the interest of reducing administrative overhead to the department, we're adjusting the workload assessment from a two year to a three year cycle. starting after the next planned report for the fall of 2025, two creating a definition of full duty, sworn officer for use in the drop provisions. three creating a definition of full duty sworn officer for use in the drop provisions and to provide a centralized definition for understanding our progress toward prop e staffing goals.

four adding progress towards sfpd's 30 by 30 pledge as a factor for consideration in each triennial triennial prop e workload assessment moving forward and additionally, we will require the police commission to report annually to the board of supervisors on three specific topics one. progress, obstacles, and needs for successful recruitment and retention of full duty sworn officers two. monitoring progress toward sfpd's 30 by 30 pledge, which is to have a department of 30% women by 2030 and three opportunities and plans to civilianize as many sworn positions as possible. now i can walk through each page of the red line. page one, multiple changes to the short and long title to conform with the changes i previously described. we are removing minimum staffing and clarifying that officers who participate in the drop program must perform neighborhood patrol or investigative work. yeah, for the public watching at home,

this section is merely narrative. this is on pages one through five it describes the history of this issue as well as the reasoning for the proposing a proposed change to the charter amendment. pages two and three we removed various mentions of the minimum staffing number. that is no longer a part of this proposal. on page four, we made grammatical changes to lines 14 through 23 to discussing the drop program. page five. on the top, we made adjustments to clarify the eligibility rules for participating in the drop program, among substantive provisions to the charter proposal page five, section two line 15. we added a clarification that this measure also replaces expired text in the drop provisions of the charter that were there previously. that is, sections 8.900 through 8.9 ten to section of

the charter. that would be charter section 4.127 on page six of the proposal, lines 11 through 19. deleting the first paragraph of the proposal is introduced, removing the minimum staffing provisions included in the initial proposal on page six lines 20 through 25. shifting the prop e workload assessment to a three year cycle from its current two year process, commencing after the next workload assessment is completed in the fall of 2025. and i would just note that throughout this section on pages six and seven any changed dates simply align the new prop e workload assessment as described on page seven. line one, nothing new from the introduced version. here we simply moved the new unified definition of full duty sworn officer to this location as it was previously located in the now removed staffing provisions above on page seven beginning line 22 to page eight. line nine removing additional provisions related to the

minimum staffing number, which are no longer a part of this proposal. on page eight, line 16 and 17 there's a change related to the minimum staffing number. we still want to require the commission to annually report to the board of supervisors on the department's hiring progress, but we have removed reference to the minimum staffing provisions as previously described on the drop section amendments. that is, charter section 8.901. i offer two simple changes to drop provisions of this charter amendment proposal. the first is on page ten, removing the mention of the minimum staffing number at the bottom of page ten to conform with the removal of the amendments to that section which i previously described. and on page 11, line 24, adding a sentence at the bottom of page 11 on line 24, at the request of the san francisco employment employees retirement system, clarifying the process for honoring reciprocal service for a laterally hired officer's

eligibility to participate in the drop, during my two years on this board of supervisors, i have admittedly been a broken record about the outsized role that police understaffing plays in many of the safety challenges facing the district six neighborhoods i represent, and i don't assume any of those challenges are unique to district six. i expect many of them touch on neighborhoods all my colleagues represent as well, after competing versions for a police staffing charter amendment earlier this year, failed to find a sufficient consensus among board members and voters. it was my hope, and it remains my hope that we could forge a consensus approach to this critical priority that finds maximum agreement and makes a real difference. to address police attrition at a time when police recruiting is more competitive than at any other time in modern history, to that end i am incredibly grateful to president peskin and supervisor catherine stefani for working collaboratively to author of this proposed charter amendment, and i appreciate their efforts with me to pare it

down to given possible budgetary impacts, today i'm grateful for the opportunity to bring forward an amended proposal that will, i believe, provide our city with a powerful tool to stave off a potential retirement cliff and address attrition challenges that hamper our ability to build back toward a fully staffed sfpd. at this point, i think few would dispute the reality of our police understaffing crisis. i know that you'll hear briefly from sfpd about our current staffing situation, as well as expected retirements over the next few years to provide a few highlights according to sfpd and our budget analyst, in the calendar year 2025 alone, there are 192 full duty sworn officers eligible for drop. based on prior trends, the department expects 50 of those folks to retire. our budget analyst estimates that this proposal could delay up to 50 retirements next year. more than 38 in 2026 and more than 43 in 2027. these are significant numbers in light

of our current recruitment challenges, which, while improving over the last 6 to 12 months could be entirely offset by retirements. if we don't act fast on retention. zooming out for a moment against this staffing backdrop, san francisco is struggling to compete in three distinct workload pools when it comes to police officers. one. we need to recruit new members to sfpd. two, we are working hard in making some observable progress in recruiting laterals from other law enforcement agencies. and three, we have to retain those officers who have reached retirement eligibility and may be considering leaving to take a position elsewhere while earning out their sfpd pensions. these latter two categories are really the focus of our current proposal which is a reformed and streamlined deferred retirement option program, or drop for short. put simply the drop enables those officers who are retirement eligible, meaning they could leave city employment today and start earning monthly pension benefits. to continue working for the sfpd, while

earning those benefits into an account managed byrement system for up to five years, and then to fully retire and receive a lump sum payment of those accrued. but deferred pension benefits. as many folks know, san francisco has tried a version of drop before. back in 2008, and indeed, this newly amended proposal draws on many of the lessons learned from both our city's previous attempt, as well as cities and counties across the state that have adopted various forms of this program. now, the original san francisco drop was intended, in hindsight, mistakenly, to be cost neutral. the increased costs of the original program were going to be offset by and wait for it savings on not recruiting new officers or having to hold police academy. academy classes. that was at a time when san francisco was in a very different situation. the full staffing number at that time was in 2010 was 1947 officers which was only 24

officers short of what was then the staffing level. we now know, we know, we need to aggressively recruit and retain full duty sworn officers in order to address a police staffing shortfall. that shortfall that is, between 5 and 600 officers. it is a police understaffing situation that is without precedent in modern history. so the simple reality is that it will cost precious city resources to accomplish these goals. the proposal before you was designed to accomplish three things to minimize costs, to, to prevent potential abuses, and three to maximize near-term public safety value for neighborhood patrol or investigative functions. the current proposal contains other significant reforms aimed at addressing shortcomings in our previous programs, as well as lessons learned from cities like los angeles and others that have reformed their drop programs over the years. these reforms include. unlike the previous drop, which was available to all ranks below command staff, this streamlined approach limits eligibility to a narrow and

focused set of ranks within the department, excluding higher ups and brass. so sorry to those folks, but this proposal also takes lessons from our neighbors to the south in los angeles by pausing drop payments to any participant who goes out on a long term leave participants would have to be would have all the same benefits available to them should they be injured on the job, or need to take a leave for other reasons. but their drop payments would be paused until the member is able to return to active service. and if that isn't possible, the officer can simply retire as they normally otherwise would have. most importantly this proposal requires participating officers to be assigned to neighborhood patrol or investigative work. we heard loud and clear concerns that a potential drop could enable senior level brass to ride a desk for their last years of service, without the extra public safety benefits to san franciscans. through this series of reforms, my coauthors and i are certain that san francisco voters will receive a

significant benefit in the form of community policing that finally gets us closer to having beat cops and foot patrols, which i know is a huge priority for many members of this body, including my colleague from district 11 who has been a long term leader on these. on these issues involving the importance of foot patrols, our residents will hopefully also see shorter 911 reports response times and more efficient investigations by dedicating experienced officers to core policing work. i'm also very appreciative for the contributions of my colleagues and co-sponsors for their contributions to this measure. although we have amended out minimum staffing numbers and recommendations to avoid the electoral sticker shock i mentioned, we are asking voters to make important investments on a lot of things, so i want to be respectful to that. however this proposal will also create new annual reporting requirements that will enhance oversight for the department on overall progress and roadblocks to recruitment and retention. plan towards increased

civilianization and progress on our 30 by 30 goals for more women in our police department. and finally, the proposed charter amendment before you. today is a five year program which provides maximum flexibility to policy makers. at the conclusion of the initial program to reauthorize the drop in whole or part after an evaluation of its cost and effectiveness in solving and our staffing and retention crisis. i want to express my gratitude to my chief of staff, david owen, and everybody on my team who has worked hard on this to controller greg wagner and to, two excellent deputy. everybody in the city attorney's office is great, as you know, as as they know. but i will just single out kate kimberlin and tim fama, who have been heroic on this. and with that, i'm happy to take any questions or go to public comment, before we have questions, i just wanted to give deputy chief walsh an

opportunity to say a few words. if you would like. thank you supervisors, for the opportunity. we're just here in support of giving you information. i know we've had questions to help you look at this. obviously, we don't take positions on ballot measures. i just want to be very clear on that. but there are numbers. i know that everybody is always asking about. and i've been in front of your committee and several committees, with the flexing of our staffing and how it important it is to keep, especially sergeants and officers in the positions they are, you can say good night to me when i'm ready to go. i'm not going to do as much as having an officer arrive at midnight to your house for a call for service. so if we can be of any help with any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. wonderful. thank you. and then just wanted to give the comptroller the opportunity to talk about costs.

thank you. chair. ronen so there are two components. the potential cost of this measure. the first is based on the retirement system actuarial analysis, of the measure that estimates a range over the life of the measure of between 5.4 million and 19 million, over amortized over time, that would result in a cost of between 600,000 and 3 million in the first year of the measure. and then in subsequent years, the range would be a savings of 300,000 to a cost of 3 million depending on the behavioral, actions taken by those eligible, the other piece of the cost of this measure is the minimum staffing requirements in the introduced measure. the language around minimum staffing would have required significant

additional cost by essentially requiring, staffing level in the budget. with the amendments introduced by supervisor dorsey today, if those amendments, amendments are adopted by changing those that language to a recommended staffing level, it would not require us to include those costs in our estimate of the cost of the measure, because the determination about the budget for staffing would go through the regular charter authority of the mayor and the board to appropriate at a level that they choose during the annual budget process. okay. thank you, supervisor walton. thank you, chair ronen. and i want to thank supervisor dorsey and everyone who, worked on this charter amendment. i think, at when i first saw the charter amendment, i wasn't excited about supporting, and the reason why is because i've always been

concerned about arbitrary minimum staffing levels going into a charter. i think from a policy discussion standpoint, from a goal that makes a lot of sense. but most certainly we have learned recently that staffing is really about supply and demand. and i just want to make sure that we're working to make law enforcement careers something exciting and something young people and people want to go into versus trying to create mandatory requirements that we don't achieve. and we know from history that we haven't achieved them. so this is definitely a step in the right direction. the focus on putting policies in place that push us towards goals, but most certainly not requiring in the charter and then not achieving what we want to, what we want to. so again, i just want to thank everyone for coming together and working on this. i know that a lot of work went into this and a lot of compromise went into bringing this forward. so i want to thank

you for that. supervisor safaí. thank you. through the chair to, supervisor dorsey. thank you for your hard work on this. i think it's, taking out the minimum requirements. where we are right now makes the most sense. and as i understand it, the this has the possibility. it's almost like a two full police academy classes. maybe saving about 50 people a year on an annual basis. what they suggest or or and i don't know of commander walsh wants to talk about that. but up to 50 people a year could potentially be deferred from leaving the system. and then ultimately allow us then the opportunity, because we're in this situation every june 1st, there's a whole host of officers

that choose to retire. and then if we're not filling the police academy classes and graduating at the same rate, then those numbers diminish. and that's what happened over the last five, six years. we didn't spend the money on recruitment. we didn't get the classes filled, we didn't graduate the classes. and then there was a dramatic number of people that left san francisco police department as well as retired. so just want to give you an opportunity to respond to that, because i believe it's what i understand. it's up to 50 people a year that could be saved from leaving the system, which will allow us then kind of without saying minimum police staffing will allow those numbers to go back up, which i think is a which is a really positive thing. the other thing and then this is just for fun but on in this you say neighborhood patrols. are you talking about neighborhood foot patrols? i'm just curious. sure. because if that's the exchange that would be great. well no, i think that i'm a believer in

neighborhood foot patrols. i know you are. and as but mostly one one of the things that does play out when there is chronic police understaffing is because a disproportionate share of police work is responding to 911 calls the foot patrols becomes a luxury that we just don't have the bodies for. you know, this it doesn't. you know, somebody who is walking a beat doesn't have the ability to respond to a911 call as much as somebody in vehicles. so i'm hoping that this will make a qualitative difference in the caliber of policing that our city does. there's one other thing. you just i'm glad you brought up police academies because historically, a drop program would be just a retention strategy. but there is an interesting nuance of this that i think takes advantage of something that we are seeing, right now where 1 in 4 of our recruits is a lateral hire. now

there's there are public safety benefits to that right now because and i don't know that we were expecting to see that i will defer to chief walsh, but, we have structured this in a way that if somebody was coming in at the end of their career from another law enforcement agency and wanted to finish up their career in san francisco, they would be able to participate in the drop program. so this actually has some public safety benefits that, you know, we haven't tried this before as a recruiting tool, but it may be that we will have some lateral lateral academies, which are shorter. i think one of the other benefits that animated much of what we were talking when we sort of went put pen to paper on this was trying to you know, do something that would find agreement and consensus but would also deliver the maximum public safety value sooner. and i think emphasizing experienced officers, we still

have to do the work of recruiting. and i think there will be a lot of reporting requirements in this that will enable us to do our job as a board of supervisors to work with the police department on identifying obstacles and solving for those. but i think this is a this is a proposal that has some benefits of retention, but also opens up some possibilities for recruitment of laterals, which will deliver public safety value sooner. but just through the chair, am i correct to say that we have the potential to save about 50 people around 50 people a year from leaving the system? yeah right. okay. yeah. so i mean, i think that's an important note to make because if we're at, let's say, 1600 right now and over the next five years we save 50. and those police academies keep fully filling and graduating. then those numbers go back up faster. yeah right. so i think that's part of the theory behind this, in a, in a situation where it's

very different than we were when we did this the first time. yeah we're we're far below, i think, any reasonable number that anyone would say we need to be at for san francisco in terms of our officer numbers, and just for point of reference i know in 2007, we graduated 307 officers in one year. that was 4 or 5 academies, and they were graduating at a very high rate so we can get back up to those numbers. and i think this will be a way to stem the flow of people leaving the system while we're replenishing. at the same time which is why five years, i think, is the right number in terms of allowing us. and just to clarify, so the chief will then be doing an annual report to the board and the commission. the chief will then after the commission is doing a hearing an annual hearing with the chief, correct? yeah there's i saw that on page, there are

annual reporting requirements about recruiting and retention generally. civilianization which has been part of the this charter section going back to the 1990s. we'll stay in there. i think we're increasing the frequency of it. and then at least until 2030, we're going to be also asking for regular reports on our progress toward 30 by 30. but am i right to say that it's in the chief alone? there's a there's hearings that the that the police commission has to have. right. yes. so they're doing that annually. they we get the reports. we're going to get to see what the progress is. and then after that five year period, the board would have the opportunity to continue this program or not. and then it talks about in that there's something that we have to the board has to legislate after the voters. if this were to be affirmed, the board has to legislate to clean up some of the previous language. is that correct? that's correct. okay. thank you. no, i appreciate it. i think this is good, i think this is thoughtful. i appreciate

the amendment of taking out the minimum staffing. and what is that did did did you already say what the number does, through the chair to the, to the comptroller? what's the final number in terms of the estimate after you've taken out the minimum police staffing, through the chair to supervisor supervisor safaí, if the minimum staffing amendments proposed are adopted, it would remove the cost of staffing from the controller's cost estimate. and we would only be estimating the cost at the, impact to the retirement system, which would be between 600,003 million in the first year, changing over time to between a slight savings to about $3 million per year going forward, as potential to be a savings and or on the high end small cost to the system

potentially over the that's over the that's over the five year period. okay. a small savings to the cost of government. sorry i didn't catch that the first time. thank you. thank you. chair. thank you. a few questions. so, so the way that i understand this is the reason why we would need a drop program is because surrounding counties have dropped programs. because if surrounding counties did not have a drop programs, then there would be no competition. is that. am i understanding that correctly? i think, you know, i can't i haven't looked and maybe, chief walsh knows. i know that major cities los angeles has had a long standing drop program, and in fact, they i think theirs was a poster child for ways that drop programs can be abused. and many of the reforms that they have made over the years were instructive in how we were looking at this. whether we're competing with that or not, i don't know. but let me because because the so my

understanding of why we would even consider this is because there are opportunities for officers to go to other bay area departments and participate in their drop programs. otherwise they would just decide whether or not to retire based on, you know, whether or not they were ready to retire. do you do you see what i'm saying here? i do, i think there's a couple paths that people take when they retire, and where drop in the way. this is envisioned. the simplest way i would put it is this is like an internal lateral program, this is like an internal an internal lateral program. so instead of me leaving at 25 years or 30 years i'm coming into the department. i'm already trained up, etc. when i go to a different department just when laterals come to us, you're retrained in sfpd versus whatever they are going to have to stay an extended period in most cases to

qualify for retirement, etc. so instead of giving them that or making that a disincentive, they're staying. we retain those people instead of them going to another area. i am not familiar with other bay area, agencies that have dropped programs on the other end. what i believe the legislation does and i'd leave that to the experts of the retirement, is if somebody qualifies coming over to come into our retirement system, it may be something that incentivizes that. so if i'm in pers for instance, versus the first responder or public safety retirement system, if there is a way to make those work, that person then might be incentivized to go, well, i can go over there and when i retire i can qualify for drop get my retirement. some people may decide just to come to sfpd at 25 years, collect their pers and

work for us and try to work for however long they're going to work. but so the way that this was first described to me is the reason that this is important is because we're losing officers to surrounding counties that have the drop program, and so why shouldn't we just, you know, you know if we're going to if we're going to lose them, why don't we just keep them here and, and pay them double? basically yep, i think so. my understanding of it was that we're losing officers who are my age and retiring. you know, this is the kind of thing i have half kiddingly said i it makes me question some of my early career decisions about what i ended up doing, because people are going on to their second careers. what we're competing with is like the uc system and colleges and other jurisdictions, danville and other places where officers are going, finishing up here and then going to another jurisdiction as a lateral hire while they're collecting. so in other words, we're competing with other jurisdictions who are

taking experienced officers from us. and we'd rather have those five years for us. i think that's the it's less about the competing with another drop program than i see. so it's that they're they're able to take draw down our pension with us and then work for a different department. got it, but so as far as you know, their other surrounding, departments in the bay area, the other eight bay area counties don't have drop programs not to my knowledge. not to your knowledge. and if i could i add one thing supervisor two just just a quick number. so we have 242 formerly sworn members of our department who currently work for our department. they can work half a year, and they're doing everything from backgrounds in a non-police function. but they're doing backgrounds. they're doing some cold case work. they do all sorts of things. they're our ambassadors. not all of those 242, obviously would want to stay as a full time employed police officer. maybe they like their time off, etc, but there

is a group that at some point it does fiscally, it does not make sense for them to come to work and just never keep putting roughly 13% of their income into a system that they're not going to get any more money back from. so they go into that or they go to another agency that a lot go to da's to be investigators. so if you look at that group that does want to stay with sfpd, wants to perform functions like that. there is a cadre probably even in that 242 who if this opportunity had been there once they hit a you know, what they felt their number was would probably stay and work and again, in the most important areas of patrol and in our investigations, as opposed to putting them into administrative roles or behind a desk, got it. so and so we're estimating that 50 officers would delay their retirement and, and join the drop program a year. is that

what i was hearing? yes. doing yeah. is that right? yeah. so the, this is from the budget legislative analyst would say that drop could delay 50 or more retirements in 2025, 38 plus and 2026 30, 43 plus in 2027. and these assume that people retire at the age of 55. so the actual number could be higher because staff are eligible for the drop at age 50. got it, thank you. thank you for answering those questions. a different set of questions. how how did you come? can i ask you? and i'm sorry, i just i'm not super educated on this, so bear with me. but, the definition of full time sworn members of the department. why? why are we excluding sworn officers at sf international airport? so this is i think it

was over the. i will defer to you, but as a policy maker i will say one thing over the years and this goes back to the 1994 charter amendment. there have been different ways that we define and understand what a full duty sworn officer is. i think often for, going back to the 90s, when we were talking about a full duty sworn officer the airport, just think of the airport as a different city. it's funded by a different portion, part of the budget. so i think it was much it was driven a lot by the fact that that's sort of off budget or on the sfo budget as an enterprise department. so it was always excluded, but sometimes it's included. and i think it was just it was well, i will say that during my my time in the police department, it was often struggling with definitions and how different people use things, this was one where it was important, i think to have one definition that's well defined, that we are commonly we are

talking about the same thing but i'll defer to chief walsh on that if you have any thoughts on it again, i think it's where the target is and the target is to have people who want to retire but want to stay with the police department potentially entering drop staying in san francisco physically, that they are going to be responsive at your district stations in your seven by seven area. but i'm just curious because this this definition of full time sworn member of the department, it isn't necessarily so important for drop. i'm just it impacts many other things in the city. and i've just been curious why we would exclude full time sworn officers at sfo, but it's because, all of those officers are paid for by sfo. they're it's in their enterprise budget. it's separate completely from the general fund. and that's and those officers are never used to

patrol our city streets or do other duties. they're completely it's almost like they're funded by another entity. okay that makes sense to me. that makes sense, and then, police academy recruits. what does that mean? oh, that that they don't count toward their. i think it's actually i think that one is the most, if i'm not mistaken somebody who is in the police academy is not yet a sworn officer. correct? we never include them in our accounts because they're not sworn until literally they go. they're still in the academy. yes. okay okay. that that makes sense. that that should be obvious, but we're just making it super obvious. if they're not sworn, they're not sworn, we're announcing it to the public. i think internally we've we've always done that. but just because when you see if we had you know, 80 people in the academy and you put that number into the hole, you would think that there's 80 more officers who are sworn out. they're working where they're not number one they're not

sworn, but they're actually not out on the streets of san francisco. got it. okay. thank you. that that all makes, sense to me, so i unfortunately didn't have time to read the whole comptroller's report. from 2011. but i believe that report. and so i need to find the this the the exact site, but that that the analysis had found. and tell me if i'm right about this, that that officers didn't necessarily extend their retirement date. but they just calculated entering drop three years before they were already going to retire. is that what that found? if i can ask the comptroller. chair. ronen. yeah. so the report that you're referring to

it did the conclusions were infirm one of the conclusions was it was difficult to tell with precision what the impact was. but essentially, as your describing the report found, that there was not evidence that the measure was increasing the tenure, on average, of police officers in a way that would make the measure cost neutral, as it was initially contemplated to be, so you have two situations one where the drop program causes somebody to work for longer than they otherwise would have. the other is they work the same amount of time but have an enhanced retirement benefit, is difficult to entangle, disentangle exactly what's happening in any individual's mind. but effectively, yes, that was the conclusion that the observed change in tenure was not

discernible. in order to conclude that the measure had been cost neutral. what makes you, given that finding what makes you think that the drop program will work this time around? i think one is that we're the observation that we're doing well with laterals, that there are people who are coming in. so i think that's right. now, the fact that one out of four of our recruits is coming in from a different agency in some ways, i when i've talked about this, i think it also reflects the reality of a labor market that is just older now. and i think we're competing at the upper, end of the labor market, i think those three buckets that i talked about, new new recruits, laterals and, you know, retention, the last two are the people who are there. so i think that's different from where we were in 2008. and between 2008 and 2010, san francisco was actually pretty

much a functionally at full staffing. that was we had, i believe, 1900. it was about we were about 24 officers off the minimum staffing level of 20 of 1971. we're now about 5 or 600 officers short. and i think the observation that retirees are going to other things, i know anecdotally, there's people who are off doing security things and other jurisdictions and in private sector roles, and we're competing with other agencies and other institutions for their skills so that is the other thing, and i think the key about the last one the charter, it was foundationally premised on being cost neutral, i think at that, at this point, there's no hope to argue that we have to also do recruitment. and that was the message that i had when i talked to the chronicle editorial board. and i'm sensitive to this, too. i want to make sure that we're being

fiscally responsible but we can't afford to not solve these problems. and i think there's no way that we're going to be getting off on the cheap on this. we can't say that it's cost neutral, but but i do think that there's some there's reasons to think because of lateral hires, and because of what we're observing with people going to other jurisdictions and other entities to continue their careers, that we're going to have some success in this. so i want to i want to challenge it a little. there and then i want to ask, ask a clarifying question. so the data that i've seen, we only had two lateral hires in 2023, is that correct, i will defer to tj. yes that's correct but i but i yeah i'm not 100% sure on that. but yes, we did have two lateral hires in the calendar year of 2023. in 2024, we have seen a significant increase in the number of lateral. how many have we had in 2024? i believe we've we've had one class so far four. and even

today i think we've had eight people start this morning, in just this year. so far we've had 12 total so far year to date including today total in 2024 to date. correct. okay. so that's a significant increase from 2023. but it's not huge numbers either. so this this leads to my second question which is you know we have this anecdotal evidence that officers are leaving, are retiring here and then going to work for other departments. but do we have any hard data on that? do we know how many officers have retired from sfpd and then worked for another department? that's not something that we track on, like an exit interview or or anything like that, it and that's why it's exactly anecdotal, it's easy to see people at my level who go on to other jobs. it's a little more difficult to see, lower

ranks, like officers and sergeants who do that. and then can i just circle back? yes. to an earlier question. can i can i just keep at this point, first of all, i very much appreciate that you have contained this to officers and sergeants. i, i that's probably my favorite part of this, this measure. but i, i do find it very problematic that we, we don't know if this is true or not. i mean, you know everyone i ask says, oh, yeah, i've heard that before. who have you heard it from? like, give me one name and nobody can name a name. so before, like i, i need to have i need to know, is this real or is this like something some one person said and then now this is the story everyone's using so that we're basically offering to double the salary when we don't even know if that's going to have officers stay longer in service. we like our one experiment with this.

there is no definitive conclusion that we were actually retaining officers longer. we just know that we paid them double. right? and so i just i need some evidence because that is compelling evidence. if we are losing officers to other departments when they retire, then, then then there's a policy rationale for the drop program. if we're not, then, you know, i'm not sure that rationale even exists. and i'm just trying to figure out if it's even true. yeah. no, i understand. i mean we have very basic numbers about who goes where when they lateral from san francisco because it's a new phenomenon. it didn't hit us, probably until the 2020s as they began. normally everybody wanted to come here, so we never really tracked it. but this kind of dovetails into what i wanted to bring up. and the comptroller can correct me, but the original drop program also had tiers. so

if you were a higher ranking you only worked a year, so that was like lieutenants and captains and sergeants i think were two and officers were three. where i think that kind of and i don't know the numbers of people who were in each one of those categories, kind of skew how long they were going to stay or go. what we're asking for is, again, your lateral question is, i think only one prong and a very valid one. but the other prong is, as i said, if somebody is at their max or near their max and they're paying 13% in to their retirement, there is no incentive to stay. so it also look at this as an incentive to have somebody stay beyond those years who maybe wasn't going to lateral, but definitely was like, it doesn't make sense for me to stay here and give gross amount of money out of my paycheck into a system i'm not going to receive anything. and how many officers are at that point right now, so it depends on on the numbers that that you

use. we've found over the last several years we're finding more the median is about 25 years and 55 55 years old, as opposed to it was 55 and 30. so let me grab that. so if we're looking at the coming 20, 24, you'd be looking at about. oh sorry this is just sergeants. i apologize if you're looking at 20, 24 to 2025, we're looking between 25 and 30 years of service. who would be in that age range? about 149. in 25, 145 and 26 and 190in 2027. and that's sergeants and officers. i just want to make sure i'm understanding this correctly. you're saying that like so let's let's say for 2024 or i don't know if you said 2024 or 2025, these 149 officers, you're

saying those officers literally gain nothing from working longer because their pension will stay the exact same? so, i mean they'll earn a little bit more because but you're saying when they have to contribute 13% of their salary to pension, it's not it's not as significant enough to make it worthtoger. is that what you're saying? i just so if you look at if you i wish we had the chart. if you look at the chart, we're based on age and time of service. so the simplest way to look at it is if you came in when you were 25 and you worked 30 years to 55, you're going to you're going to probably be over the max because you add in some percentages. what we're seeing is people are retiring at 25 years is our new kind of median, regardless of how much they're going to make. my caveat was when you even when you max, you are giving those people an incentive to stay. but now when you go down, your

people do leave money on the table. and i think we heard that from some of the firefighters. they get to about 25 years. and we're seeing since 2020 on that is our new kind of aid or years of service when people are leaving. so their number could be anything from the high 70s to like the mid 80s. so i couldn't give you you'd have to look at again their age if they had any prior city service and things like that. so i think if we just look at the retirement number of 25 years, you're still incentivizing somebody regardless if they're not maxed out yet to stay. so this has nothing to do with people retiring and then working for another county. this is just this is just that people are tired of doing the job and retiring early. and you're you're saying if we double their salary, basically if we doubled it then you might encourage them to stay. i think that is one particular reason. but what

i'm saying is that you also add in why people are leaving at 25 is the staffing issue. when you're working six and seven days every week, or multiple hours in your 40 hour week you're now working 60 on your 4 or 5 days. that is a driving factor. so when you wheel these people off and they go down that burden, if we continue at recruiting that burden weighs heavier on those people. and then maybe i can't answer this question, but maybe those even go worse. and you're staffing. all i'm saying is with all these multifaceted, if you give an opportunity that incentivizes people to stay, that goes across all boards, whether i'm paying completely into my retirement now, i can say because there's a financial benefit, if i'm thinking about leaving in 25 years because there's too much work to be done and i'm burnt out, maybe it gives you an incentive to stay a little longer. so i don't think it's one group, one answer. i think

that what we're trying to do, whether it's drop or looking at different ways to get people to move around within the department is just keeping them in place and making them you know, reach a point where they're comfortable in their career, where they're working for the city of san francisco. and this is just one of, i think, many arrows in our quiver that we have to look at. have you surveyed officers in your department about whether or not drop would encourage them to stay? again, we didn't do that, within the department, i would assume that would be something the poa would do. again, our support for the ballot is neutral. and my answers, i hope, are going to that. on what different incentives would be. but any survey i think we'd be kind of crossing a line into do you support, do you support the drop program? and i wouldn't ask if they would support. i want to know about how it would impact

their behavior because it just we just don't know. we we're asking to put a significant amount of money towards a program which might be the right thing to do. i'm just trying to that's what i'm trying to figure out for me. like, is this a good use of this money, given our staffing challenges, which are real, no doubt, and so that's what i'm trying to figure out. and, and i unfortunately just don't have a lot of data to figure that out. i only have this three year pilot that we did in, you know, in between 28 and 2011, where there's all this inconclusive data that suggests that it didn't actually impact officers decision making as much, or you know, or we just conclusively don't know. and then i've been told, you know, there's all these officers that retire with the city and then go work in other jurisdictions. and then i ask, okay, how many of those? and nobody knows, and

nobody can even cite to me one example, they just say they've heard the story and i'm like, name the officer. i would love to talk to that officer, you know? and nobody can actually name a name. and so i'm just i'm genuinely just trying to figure out if this is a good policy. i, was really against the minimum staffing. so i'm very glad that you took that out of here. and now i'm just trying to decide whether or not i support just the drop version of it. and i just i just feel like there's more data that we need as policymakers. given what i said, with the firefighter and the nurses and the 911, you know, we're putting all these measures on the ballot, adding a significant and the housing, the housing for seniors, the ellie we're you know we're we faced it what, $800 million deficit for the past two years. and we're putting 4 or 5 measures on the ballot that would significantly tie the city's

hands. and again, i'm not going to be here, you know. supervisor. well you may be here in a different position, but, but i, i do think that that, we should feel really confident that, that the policy rationale makes is worth is worth the money and it may be that that it is. i'm just i'm still i'm still wanting for some data around this, let me pass it on to my colleagues and then i can come back, but maybe between now, and the 15th, when we continue this, we can we can get at least some of these questions answered. supervisor walton. thank you. chair. ronen, just a clarifying question. and we don't have to unpack all of this now, but am i correct in hearing that we're saying sfo officers never patrol our streets? oh

they'll come up for like an overtime or something like that. and if there was obviously a city emergency we pull them. okay. i just want to make sure i'm. yeah, i want to just clarify that, like, thank you. but we don't we don't the general fund doesn't pay their salaries. correct. okay. so even if we pull them sorry. now even if we so if we pull them for city emergencies or overtime in that case, does the general fund pay their salaries? i believe it i believe it would because what we're doing is we're using them outside their, area of operation. okay. okay oh, supervisor. oh, great, i just want to express my gratitude to everybody for excellent questions, and i agree, look to the extent there is legislation we can do to require more reporting, to, to really open up the hood on what's going on. what i am getting is that i think in many ways we're in uncharted waters and historically, san francisco

hasn't been losing people to, you know, at this age. i think in some ways it's this is new to us. i think what i have observed from, you know my time working for the two years that i was working in law enforcement is these aren't necessarily unique to san francisco. we're really in a generational time that much of it goes back to the clinton administration, when bill clinton said he was going to put 100,000, it ended up being like 125,000 cops on the street, all of them reaching retirement age now. so it's really uncharted waters in terms of what we're struggling with. and i get to and i don't and i share some of your concerns. there are aspects of a drop that, as the comptroller mentioned, that are unknowable. you know, it's hard to know what somebody would have done in a different, you know, alternate reality with or without this, what i, what where i came down and where i felt this was worth advocating for and pursuing, is that we know that it won't be an incentive if

we don't do it in other. and to the extent we can try this knowing that there are people who are going to other places, i do agree with you, though. i think it would be helpful to know in detail where are people going, and i can do some homework on on that to see what we can find out for next week. and beyond that, what we would need to, you know, if that's something we should be considering legislating as as we exercise oversight on this. yeah. and it's just an expensive it's a very expensive experiment. so that's that's that's that's my worry. i one other question just on the findings. i'm just wondering why you took out kind of all the history of the minimum staffing, given that we're we're we're still putting we're i, i want to again, appreciate you for taking out, putting a number in the charter, which i think is a huge mistake. and i'm glad we're not

doing that but just that kind of putting the history. i'm just curious. it's not that consequential. it's just the findings. but i'm curious why you took that out. i think the findings related to the minimum staffing levels were really about, setting the, the table for why we were putting something that was aspirational back into the charter. and i get that this would be aspirational as some, you know, some sometimes we refer to the term charter jail if we didn't make it. and for 25 years we had a minimum staffing level that was there that we rarely met. i think 2 or 3 times what i would say in hindsight is that we it did it did keep us close, but it isn't it isn't worth the fight over something that really is aspirational, given that we have a job to do and i'm committed to doing it in terms of the doing exercising oversight and asking for reports and asking the good questions like you're asking today. okay. okay, supervisor

safaí. yes, thank you. i just want to say the thing that that ultimately has gotten me in the end over many of the arguments is that, you know, our own bla is the one making the statement that up to 50 in year one could be stemmed from retiring and where we are right now in terms of the police academy numbers beginning to come back up and the amount similar to some of the arguments that i made earlier about the amount of money that we rely on overtime. i mean, we funded 300 officer recruitment positions last year, despite all of the back and forth and fighting. and i know you and i had some of that supervisor dorsey, but it was 300 funded positions that then transfer it to overtime. so the way we're running the department right now because of the shortfall is through overtime, i understand that we're making a lot of choices based on where we are in terms of budget deficit.

but if we can do on the low end 600,000 in the first year, up to 3 million maybe, i think that's i think that's a gamble worth taking to stem potentially up to 50in year one, 38in year two and then allow us the time to graduate people and the numbers of the academies are going up in terms of graduation. i think at one point we had nine. i know, i know that the number was 12 laterals, but i mean and i didn't mean to speak over you but i mean, we graduated one class was nine graduates. and so that's more than that. now those numbers are going back up. and so this gives us time. so ultimately i think this is this is a this is a risk worth taking in terms of where we are fiscally. so i'd like to be added as a co-sponsor on this. i appreciate the work that was done. i would not have supported it on the other end, because the number i think was up in the 38 to $40 million a year, which we just couldn't support in terms of where we are, but in terms of where we need to be graduating

over time and staffing, i think it's a gamble worth taking. supervisor dorsey, i thank you, supervisor safaí. i just would i appreciate you also raising the issue of overtime, which i don't think we've talked about enough but i mean, this is something when budget supplementals have come before us, you know, i have supported them, but i'm not proud of it. this is like spending more money for less policing, and it just feels like there's a better way to do this. i think that's equally true for some of the other things that there are charter amendments to address, including 911 operators and nurses and some of the other things that we're doing. but that does come down to there are times that when we talk about the costs, there's also the costs of not doing more to be more efficient. so i hope that that is, something that people appreciate about this. and i just appreciate everybody's good questions and work on this great i just want to make one last

comment before we open this up for public comment. i i feel like this board has really bent over backwards to give the department most of what it asked for in terms of trying to recruit and hire more officers, because there's not enough officers giving absurd amounts of money for overtime, etc etc. and, i do want to say respectfully that, the experience of my constituents and of me and my office is that every time we've asked for anything, we're told they can't do it because there's not enough officers and, no other department gets to say that, you know, no other department, we you know, everyone's working

extremely hard all over the city, and that's just a, a frustration. and critique that i have. i, you know, i may or may not support this. i'm looking for that additional data. i understand the policy reasoning behind it. and i agree that we do not have enough officers, my worry is that, you know, when are we going to get back to the time where whenever we ask for service or we ask you know, for the basics like there's rampant fencing, including, you know, shots fired on a regular basis on the streets related to it that we're told, sorry, we don't have enough officers. like, i'm like, that's that's sort of that that's, you know category a work like that's top priority work there, and that has just been a real frustration for me. and so, you know, for the

community, we're, you know, they just seem more and more money going every single year into the police department. and there was a moment where there was a real effort to try to divert resources to other forms of protecting public safety, whether that's you know, poverty issues or you know, the crisis diversion program, etc, and a lot of money did go into those programs and should be taking work away from the police at the same time, because there's one thing adding money to the police department, to police officer salaries to increase, you know increase recruitment, etc. there's another thing of taking work off the police department plate that really shouldn't be there, and we have been trying to do both in the city, which i think is the right thing to do. but we have been doing that and we've been spending a ton of money, and i just don't know when are we going to see

results? you know, i just if you ask, you know, i can't i can't put a number, but at least 50% of the residents of district nine will probably tell you why are you adding they they just they just say we don't have enough officers to do anything that we can't send anyone anyway. and i just don't know at what point we, we say enough is enough, right? like, i just what what is that point? i think san franciscans are just tired of the excuses. and i know as a supervisor, i have been trying to get full time staffing of a out of control and very dangerous fencing situation on one of the busiest streets and transit corridors in the city has been virtually impossible, and i that's like the bread and butter work of officers. it's not it's not asking for, you know, something like extra or on

the side. and i can't get it. i can't get it. it's hard. as hard as i try. and so i just i'm feeling frustrated because i, i have voted for everything that the police department has asked for in recent years, and that has not improved at all. and and something's got to give at some point. so i just want to, i that that doesn't that doesn't give my definitive, you know, conclusion about whether or not this is a good policy measure but it does deal with an overall frustration that i think that those of us who are responsible for districts and the public is experiencing, and i would like to see that change at some point but with that, thank you. so much for answering all the questions, and i will work with you, supervisor dorsey, to see if we can get some of that data

by the next meeting. and we can now open this item up for public comment. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should i end up to speak at this time? each speaker will be allowed two minutes. folks, this is redneck retention. that's what it is. you what? the problem is you got a snake oil salesman over here knowing this guy 30 years, good guy, but he he can sell, ice cubes in the arctic. you know the this is bad. this is taken bad. cops. guys that you hired, they're racist. they're homophobic, they're sexist. and you want to keep them on at another five years, and every single one of them will make more than the goddamn mayor. and they can. they can sit there at 25 years and be 45 years older or some crap like that, making $300,000 a year for going out and harassing people. i mean, this

department is out of control and the answer is not to pump more money to them. that's absolutely ridiculous. and the laterals are bringing in. they bring in thugs. two of the five people that shot mario woods were lateral transfers. you're backing that, right, safaí. that's what you just said. oh, yeah. let's give them 300,000 a year apiece. and there are 240 of them. they're going to be eligible. that's $50 million. i mean, god damn is there, why not? why not ask for $1 million apiece for them over there, matt i mean, you could probably sell it. i know you can sell it to safaí because he's running for mayor, and he'll vote for anything. that says public safety behind it. you know, it's absolutely ridiculous. good afternoon, supervisors. mo jamil, district three resident,

just wanted to say thanks. supervisor dorsey and president peskin for working collaboratively, collaboratively on this, we live in a world of infinite wants and limited resources. and i think this carefully balances those needs the point i think that was made in today's hearing, which i'd like to stress is, again, the staffing challenges and overtime overtime is great for officers who want it, but there's a lot of officers that are being forced to work overtime, and that does put a strain on themselves and their families, and i think any incremental measure that, that can reduce those burden on those officers and the rank and file is a bone worth throwing them at this time. so i think i wanted to again express my support for this and hope that it could gain unanimous, unanimous support of this board. thank you. hello. my

name is leah mackenzie river. i live in d six, i just happened to be here for this, so let's see if i can string this story together. back in 2021, our mayor said in regards to the tenderloin that we're going to make people who are dealing drugs, who are using drugs out in the open with no regard for community people who are assaulting and spitting on and stabbing and shooting and destroying this community. we are going to make life hell for them. you know at least she opened a linkage center as well and that was working. but guess what? she took that away and now we're just left with the hell part. all of the police surveillance all of the arrests all of the harassment. i see police every day multiple times a day in the few hours i am out and about. you know, when the getting home from work and shit,

they're harassing black and brown, regular people who happen to have shopping bags, who happen to be giving each other exchanging whatever they bought. they're just telling people with disabilities they can't sit or stand at the un plaza waiting for a car to pick them up, even though construction workers there tell the cops no. yeah. this is the official pickup spot for this car service. no, it's just a bunch of harassment and abuse, more or less. so for white people. white men back in 2023, the mayor said that compassion is killing people. i don't believe that, i would like a maximum staffing level of sfpd. sfpd officers. i don't know why my supervisor is obsessed with minimum staffing officers. might be because he used to be sfpd director of strategic communications. i don't know why y'all can't just say no. just say no. just say no. you tell us to say no. you

should say no to this guy for our public safety. i want to second what leah said. we should only have. we should have maximum staffing levels. and you know what? you're never going to get a fully staffed police department. you're fucking dead, lulu, if you think that somehow a bunch of millennials and gen z who grew up with fucking police brutality, who grew up with george floyd and who grew up like in this neoliberal society, are going to want to be cops. that's fucking bullshit. come on. and besides, we have a lot of things that help create public safety that are not cops, and they're being underfunded and we need to use our limited resources to be able to make sure that people are whole. because when people are whole you don't need cops. you got clean streets, you got small fiber and small businesses. as long as we're housed and we got

the services we need on drop programs, i fully fucking oppose drop programs. i was living in philadelphia in 2011. there was a big controversy about people abusing drop programs in fact, my council member at the time actually declined to run for reelection because he was found out that he was abusing the drop program. they're basically a waste of taxpayer dollars. they're bullshit. and a lot of places don't have drop programs. so just fuck the police. and i'm going to say this i've had violent felonies committed towards me. guess what? i never called the police. and you'll hear more about that soon. so just cops are a disgrace. i yield my time. fuck you. are there any additional speakers on this matter? there are no additional speakers at this time. public comment is now closed, i'd like to amend the

make a motion to amend the item as presented by supervisor dorsey and then continue the item to the july 15th board meeting. yes. on the motion to amend and continue, as amended to july 15th vice chair walton walton i supervisor safaí i safaí i chair. ronen i ronen i the motion passes without objection. motion passes unanimously. mr. clerk, do we have any other items on the agenda that completes the agenda for today? the meeting is adjourned.

>> [music] you are watching golden gate inventions with michael. this is episode exploring the excelsior. >> hi i'm michael you are watching golden gate inventions highlighting urban out doors we are in the excelsior. pickleball. let's play pickleball! pickleball is an incredited low popular sport growing nationwide. pickleball combines tennis bad mitton and ping pong.

playod a bad mitton sized court with paddle and i plasticic ball. starting out is easy. you can pick up paddle and balls for 20 buck and it is suitable for everyone in all skill levels you see here. the gim is played by 2 or 4 players. the ball must be served diagnoty and other rules theory easy to pick up. the game ends when i player or team reaches a set score 11 or 21 point bunkham win bright 2 pickleball courts are available across the city some are and others require booking ahead and a fee. information about the courts found at sf recpark. org if you are interested in playing. now i know why people are playing pickleball.

it is so much fun you play all ages. all skill levels and pop on a court and you are red to g. a lot of fun i'm glad i did it. all right. let's go! time for a hike! there is i ton of hike nothing excelsior. 312 acres mc clarin the second largest p in san francisco. there are 7 miles of tris including the there was fer's way this spreads over foresxeft field and prosecute voids hill side views of the city. and well is a meditative quiet place in mc clarin p you will siendz labyrinth made of rock:now we are at glen eagle golf course special try out disk golf >> now disk golf!

so disk golf is like traditional golf but with noticing disks. credit as the sport's pioneer establishing the disk ballsorption and the first standardized target the disk ball hole. the game involves throwing from key areas toward i metal basket. players use different disks for long distances driver, immediateerate. mid range and precise shot putters. players begin at the t area. throw disks toward the basket and prosecute seed down the fare way. player with the lowest number of throws the end wins the game. disk golf at glen eagle cost 14 dollars if you pay at the

clubhouse. there is an 18 hole course this is free. du see that shot? i won! am i was not very good now i have a huge respect for disk ball player its is difficult but fun. thank you for joining me in the excelsior this is goldenate adventures.

(clapping). >> so nice today. you know everyone should have the day off today and yeah. >> know i'm joint tenant kidnapping especially the union square ambassadors know not today. um, hi, everyone i'm san francisco mayor london breed and joined today by our union square

ambassadors our downtown ambassadors and our union square alliance ceo melissa rodriguez and yerba buena executive director and so many people have a lot to do in the downtown area i want to express my appreciation to all of you for being here but more importantly all of you for building in and never giving up on