agenda to be weighed against this extremely valuable, wise, and just thing, which is to raise the wages of ihss and nonprofit workers. i do hope over the next week there can be fruitful conversations that do get us to a sustainable place and get us to something that we can all support. thank you. >> president cohen: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: so a number of things that i would just say. as the original cosponsor of the minimum compensation ordinance with supervisor sheehy, as supervisor mandelman mentioned, it has long been important to me that we recognize how we pay or lowest paid workers. in fact, when asked a lot by the private sector on what they can do to address homelessness and housing insecurity, i always respond by telling them to pay

their lowest paid workers better, and in fact many of the lowest paid worker nz our tech companies and finance in the city and county of san francisco, whether they be our janitors, our ihss, our cafeteria are in the lottery for housing. they are sleeping in their cars, couch surfing with other members of the their family or friends. it is frankly just a state of the cost of living here in the bay area that exists today that is making it so difficult for people who make really good wages to live anywhere in the bay area. when my friends who i consider middle-income moving as far as richmond and hercules to get a

home. one of the ways we're -- by the way, the fastest growing income gap between the rich and the poor here in san francisco and is in san francisco, is by increasing the pay of our lowest pat workers. i am concerned about every worker and how we spend our dollars. we have to be fiscally prudent as we move forward, and we know that this incredible growth in our economy which is a little unprecedented is going to end at some point, and we will have a recession, and our reserves are incredibly important for those reasons to help us through the down period. having start office in the recession, i remember how painful it was when i started on the board with supervisor yee and fewer to cut down to the barest bones in our schools. and then, when i joined the board of supervisors to be on the six rounds of cuts to our

nonprofit and city services. however, we do have a crisis today, which is that even though we're not in an overall recession for our city, our lowest paid workers are experiencing a recession like never before, and we have to support them now. mplg. we have to have a conversation, but i think investing in our workers to get paid a little more so that they can contribute back to our local economy is going to have a multifold impact by putting more dollars in our local economy because these workers can't afford it. but the biggest concern for me is our approach to parity. this past year in the july fiscal year budget, this board of supervisors approved a 3%

increase to some of our more highly paid workers, our police officer. which we all supported. we gave them a 3% increase over the next three years, and that first hit cost our city $12.24 million. over two years, it will cost our city $36 million, and over the course of three years, you can do the math. so if we're willing to give our police officers, our middle class employees $12.24 million, we should be willing to give our lowest pat workers $11 million. now i would have liked that this happened in the june budget, as well, 'cause these worker should be getting this increase today. they shouldn't be waiting for as long as they have, but for a number of reasons, we're at the point that we are today. i do strongly support our m.c.o. i do want to figure out a way to

make it work. i think it's important to address all the points that think colleagues have brought up, but i just have to say, i continue, and i agree with supervisor peskin who said this during his roll call, we suddenly see a deficit of $30 million, and the city suddenly has the money to cover that gap. why can't we cover this one? i hope we can work something out, and finally, we do have to come to an agreement with the mayor's on this, because i would hate to see the board pass a supplemental even at a veto proof, and get spent do you object and not -- spent down, and not in the pockets of our hardest workers. i do want to thank supervisor peskin and ronen who spent many hours bringing us to the point we're at today. i think why we're voting this now versus three or four months

ago, there was a lot of cats to herd, and we were not able to get everybody in the same room by june 30, but hopefully, we can correct for that delay over the next couple of weeks. >> president cohen: all right. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president cohen. i, too, want to start by thanking the cosponsors, for moving this along. i have -- also do want to associate myself with the concerns. i share those concerns. i was here for the hearings, and i saw those difficult decisions having to be made. i strongly encourage our labor leaders to continue to work with mayor breed on this to find a fiscally responsible way to pay for it. taking from the reserve makes me extremely nervous. i will be supporting the amendments today, but i want it

known that i do encourage greatly continued conversations on fiscal alternate tiffs or triggers as supervisor peskin stated. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. supervisor ronen, i'm going to speak to you, because you've had a chance to speak, and i'll let you close it out. i don't think that the appropriate place for us to be dealing with an ongoing expense to the tune of $44 million is during the add back process or also known as the budget spending plan. second of all, when we had hearings at the board of supervisors, we asked what people's priorities were, and honestly only one person on this body said ihss workers was a priority. only one. and so it's a little unfair to say that we should have done it in the budget process and we didn't, implying that was a collective choice. and also want to keep in mind that we were dealing with competing priorities during the

budget season. also, want to acknowledge that it was mayor farrell that didn't put it in the original budget to find an ongoing source of revenue. i want to speak to the amendments. i -- no one talked to me or briefed my office on these amendments. i don't know what it's been like for any of the other members, but the first time i've seen these is today. it's hard for me to vote for something that i haven't seen. i'm looking to the labor leaders in the chamber that no one reached out, text messaged or anything, and also the sponsors that did not do the same. so to me, i interpret that as perhaps my vote is not that important. but i think not. i think my vote is important, and i think i was extremitial in bringing the m.c.o. that we got passed, passed. i was not on the original list

of folks that got the m.c.o., but i was at the end. i also want to acknowledge that the mayor's office was instrumental in getting that done. we are working with mayor breed's office. i also want to correct -- i think i heard supervisor kim say -- let me back up. supervisor peskin acknowledged that we needed an audit for $33 million, i think it is, over expensing of the housing authority. this just further exacerbates our financial stability. i also want to acknowledge that we've got a memo from the controller's office that pertains to the minimum nonprofit city contractor cost analysis, and i'd like to give him an opportunity to walk us through. we've had a lot of discussion around the amendments, but ben, could you -- again, this is the first time that i'm seeing this.

i need you to do a high level walk-through so that we're informed about exactly what these decisions that we're going to be making. before we go one step further, to the project sponsors, have we identify a source of revenue? i know the amendments that we're taking up today doesn't deal with financing, but how -- how -- and supervisor fewer, we can -- i'll circle back to you after supervisor ronen, and first, we'll hear from ben rosenfield. thank you. >> madam president, members of the board, ben rosenfield, city controller. so there's two components at cost, really in this ordinance and prior versions of the m.c.o. that have been discussioned here. it's been how does it drive ihss wages, and secondly, what is the cost for nonprofit organizations for their employees, and how much of that cost is likely to pass through to the city? so we provided analysis, as have the budget analyst and others

about ihss cost. we've done some of that work relate today this -- these amendments here today, and we can brief any of you in the week ahead prior to the action next week. we prepared a preliminary analysis of nonprofits about a year ago when this process started based on higher level information at the request of sponsors and others. we've gone through a more elaborate survey process in the last few months to put a finer grain number what the implications are for nonprofit organizations. that's what we were outlining in our memo. again, i'd be happy to brief any member on it. it's a complicated answer because for nonprofits, there's a district cost for them related to raising their wages from $15 to whatever the new m.c.o. is. that's a direct wage cost that we've outlined in the memo. secondly, in doing that, the organizations are going to face a cost pressures to raise others in the wage chain above them to

maintain comparable scales, what we call wage compaction. we've tried to estimate some of the ranges of what those could look like. what approach do they take for workers on noncity contracts, so we've tried to put numbers on those, as well. those are three variables that will drive the profcosts for nonprofit organizations. so happy to answer any questions from any member of the board in the week ahead. >> president cohen: thank you. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: oh, thank you. i'm glad that you had our controller speak because i wanted to thank you so much, ben, for preparing that, and your staff, and i'm so sorry, i'm forgetting your name.

your name? and michael for doing this incredible report. this has been a question that has been on all of our minds for so long, and it is incredibly complicated, and in a short period of time, you produced an excellent product of work. michael, i'm so sorry i forgot it, but i will remember it forward because of your excellent, excellent work, so thank you. it was largely because of the controller's report that supervisor fewer, kim, and i decided to substantially change the ask around the nonprofit worker raise, that at -- the amendments that you have before us today will only cost the city -- only, i mean, we have an $11 billion budget, $500,000 a year, so i don't think that's a major ticket item in our city budget. now the impact on nonprofits is different, and that's where we

setup the working group to figure out how you deal with both the equity issues and the compaction issues for that raise and any future. the other thing to realize about the $1 raise starting july 1 for nonprofit workers is the minimum wage has a cost of living increase every year. so by setting that $1 wage in january of this coming year, we're going to have a minimum wage increase, so the value of that's actually going to be much less, and those nonprofits would have been on the hook any way, the city would have been on the hook, any way. so i think the proposal that we put forth concerning the nonprofit workers is incredibly modest and thoughtful and reasonable. thank you largely to -- to the controller's excellent work. so thanks again for that. you know in terms of the comments of all of -- all of the

colleagues, you know, this issue has been before us now for a couple of years. it wasn't my legislation when it was before the board, so i wasn't, you know, as supervisor -- as president cohen said, not many people put it as their top issues on our list. well, i wasn't following this issue as closely because it wasn't my legislation, and i was kind of looking to my colleagues for leadership on and it never came before us. but i'll just remind you that the board of supervisors has very little ultimate power over our budget. it is, you know, $11 billion budget. we're given one month to dissect it. the budget and legislative analyst does a report, but we rary get into the -- rarely get into the nitty-gritty every department's line item's budget,

where really, is that material important, is it used over every single year? how much can we save there? you can't do that for $11 billion in the span of a month. so what we are playing with at the end of every budget season during the add back process is t is somewhere between 11 and $20 million divided by different sprier's priorities in a very short period of time. to say that that somehow -- in that process, we should have taken care of this after the mayor decided not to prioritize it, mayor farrell, at the time, and after only i guess one supervisor -- i'm assuming that was supervisor sheehy who was leading the legislation at the time, put it on this list -- >> president cohen: actually, it wasn't. >> supervisor ronen: okay. it wasn't. well, thank you to the supervisor who put it on their list as a priority.

but it doesn't mean that i -- that we shouldn't be, then, reconsidering it now, especially given all the very, very good reasons. and the other thing that i would say is, you know, sometimes i feel like you're darned if you do, you're darned if you don't when you're a low wage worker, when you're a poor person in the city. when we're in a recession, the police never get cut, but we'll cut poor people. when we're in a booming economy, with record economy, when all of a sudden at the end of the year,

we get this memo, $40 million, we got more than what we were expecting. this is what happens every single year at this board of supervisors. so in this booming time, everyone's talking point when they don't want to spend money on poor people, oh, we've got to get ready for the recession. we've got to save because things are going to be bad really soon. and i honestly think when do poor people get prioritized? we have a record reserve, $127 million general fund reserve. we've never had a reserve like that in the history of san francisco. what we're proposing is we take

a small little of that on an issue that we all agree is a crisis. we have seniors in shelters in -- and a city with an $11 billion budget. seniors in shelters. how is that not a priority and a crisis? and then, you were saying we're even going to put that back, and we have a booming economy right now. we have development happening in scores. the property tax that we're collecting every year, it's obscene. and landlords are profiting to tunes that we've never seen before in our city, and tenants are getting displaced. and we didn't do a modest increase that i feel is incredibly measured, that would get ihss workers to, you know,

what, a 35,000 annual salary a year so they still can't live in san francisco but that might keep them here and in place and continuing to do their work? what have we become? i'm kind of shocked. we work so hard to elect representatives that we think are going to fight for the people of san francisco that is suffering beyond measure. this wealth is not being shared equally. it's not even being close to shared equally. people say we used to work at a nonprofit, too, and we used to earn that salary, and it sucks. and now, we work at city hall, and we don't have to think about those people and more. i'm sorry to get passionate about this, but i just feel that we can never win here, and that sandy fewer, jane kim and i worked really hard to get to a

really, really reasonable place here. to hear that my colleagues are not ready -- are going to support it today but not be ready to support it tomorrow after we've gone over the data and the statistics over and over again is just incredibly disappointing, i have to say. but we will continue to work hard because that's what we do, and we will continue to fight with our labor and our labor partners and our senior community and workforce community and ihss workers and our immigrant communities and we'll organize as big as we've organized as ever before, and we'll make sure we have a meeting on the 23rd, lasting until 3:00 in the morning. i'll tell my husband we're going to have to celebrate some other day to show you how important this issue is because apparently we just can't get it by hearing the data, and we need more. and we will continue to dialogue with the mayor, which we'll been -- we've been willing to do

all along, and weren't able to get attention until yesterday. but -- and we'll continue to do that and try to convince you. but quite frankly, i am so sick of the excuses. if we are able to give police officers who earn record wages and didn't even take one of the budget cuts that were recommended by the b.l.a. in -- in the -- the budget process last year, but we can't give pennies to the workers that are keeping people off the streets, then who are we, san francisco? who are we? >> president cohen: supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: well, that's a hard act to follow, but i will say. i want to say that i want on the school board when we sent out over 500 pink slips. i know what it's like during a recession, but i also know what it's like to be in a time where we have great wealth. we have an unprecedented amount

of money in our general fund reserve, 127 million, we've never had before. i think, colleagues, today, it's not about fiscal responsibility, it's really about moral compass. when we look at these workers and who -- this is the largest low wage workforce in the city of san francisco. these are people of color, they are women, they are one step away from homelessness, and i can just hear my colleagues saying and lamenting, oh, my gosh, our homesless problem is getting so bad, it's getting so bad, it's getting worse. well, yes, because we are not investing in this low-wage workforce. so what are we asking? we are asking to move from 15 dlan hour to $17 an hour. there isn't anyone in this room who is making 17 an hour that is trying to feed themselves or clothe themselves.

i remind everyone that it is our job to legislation and regulate greed. i just think here in these chambers people who have been marginalized, people of color, seniors, people who are doing this hard work every day, i have learned they have the smallest voice, and they joined the voices of seniors, they joined the voices of our children, that they have the smallest voice at the table because people are not listening. but i -- today, i thank my colleagues, supervisor ronen and supervisor kim, i hope people are listening. this is a workforce of 20,000 people that are on the verge of homelessness themselves. this is not only imperative to keep people who are ageing and disabled folks who are they caring for? they are caring for people like

katey tang's mother and norman yee's sister. they are making $15 an hour annual wage, which is 31,000 a year. if they make $17 17 an hour, thl be making under $5,000 a year. -- $35,000 a year. i dare you to get up every day and work, changing people's diapers and feeding them. this is to me, an issue of moral compass. this is about -- this is -- we can find a way to pay for this. as we said, i didn't take -- i was on the budget committee last year. we didn't take a lot of the recommended cuts from the budget lemgs l

legislative analyst that could have paid for this. i think it's -- i think it's great that people are willing to vote positive fore these amendments, but next week is where it counts. i think 20,000 home care workers are counting on us. as people know me, they know that i am very frugal. i save money for my own family, i save money for a rainy day. i am not a spendthrift. i weigh very carefully, and i have done that because i've seen these workers, i seen the work that they do, i've seen the data, and i've seen the statistics of how they impact the seniors in our communities. it will not work to push all of them out of san francisco. they are here. they are our responsibility. these people, some of them city workers, quite frankly, and

making a wage that none of us could actually live on. we are not asking for a wage of $30 an hour or $20 an hour or we're asking for a wage for them of $17 an hour. and these workers, they do not have sick leave, they do not have vacation. when you think about all these other city workers, the two and three weeks vacation, and then after you've worked for the city for so many years, you get five weeks of vacation, and over time pay. these people have no vacation days, no sick days, they have no days off. so let's just think about that before we take a vote next week. i hear my colleagues about being fiscally prudent, and that -- and i have to echo supervisor had said, is that we're in time now where we can -- we can give them some cushion, we can be

generous. and we want to look at budget cuts, look at it during our budget season when the budget legislative analyst actually gives us recommended cuts, and then, let's take these cuts and see if we can find this money for the lowest wage workers who take care of people that we dearly love and care about. and that means your own family members. too. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: well, i just wanted to clarify something that supervisor ronen said. i mean, i talked about reply experience of working in a -- my experience of working in a nonprofit. not to say now i have a city job and everything's fine, the reason i talked about it is i have empathy for people that make low wages. that's what i'm talking about. i want to really thank my colleagues for taking this on, supervisor ronen and supervisor fewer, and then supervisor kim that started this.

this is something that we should be talking about year-round. if you want to be talking about poor people, we should be talking about this every time we decide anything that we do. are we doing something for the poor in san francisco. are we willing to give up some of our plaza programs, our parks programs? are we willing to look at these things that we do all the time, and where they're out pet projects, are we willing to give them up and help out the poor in the city. so i just want to thank you for standing up for something that's really hard, i know that, and all the work and energy you put in there, thank you. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. there was a motion made to -- motion made by supervisor fewer, and it was seconded by supervisor ronen. this was, again, the motion to accept the amendments. can we do a roll call vote?

>>clerk: yes. [roll call] >>clerk: there are ten ayes and one no, president cohen in the dissent. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. the amendments are accepted. madam clerk, let's see, is there a motion to send this item to committee? supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: actually, i would like to make a motion to bring this as a committee of the whole to the full board next week. >> president cohen: okay. that motion's made by supervisor fewer, seconded by supervisor yee. can we take this without objection, to sit as a committee as a whole? all right. we take that without objection.

thank you. this ordinance is going to be continued to october 23 of 2018. madam clerk, what's next? >>clerk: public comment. >> president cohen: all right, ladies and gentlemen, favorite time. day, public comment. plea please -- favorite time of the day. >> i want to make note that you skipped public comment and went to item 56. >> president cohen: we're in public comment now. we didn't skip it. >> everything that every one of you are speaking up for, i've been speaking about it for years. now it's in your family, now you want to address it and about you talking about -- you've got all these millions of dollars in the city account, that's not coming from this administration, that's coming from the president of the united states america, and quit making mistakes, acting like you got something to do with the multimillions of dollars when you've got in the account now. when you took over and by the

last same response to ed lee's life, you had an $88.2 million deficit. when you took over that, you still had that deficit. when the president of the united states did that tax cut, that's when the economy started booming. now i want to back up here. i believe giving in credit where credit is due. i want to give credit where credit is due. i want to salute supervisor kim for -- she said that my demonstrations in low-income where property is being kept is based on being overlooked and not including the low-income and very low-income bracket in the housing opportunity. but you've got to stop -- not stop there, because you're not following instructions. you're talking about rule 415. 410 is not the one that's not being applied because every building is supposed to have 410 incorporated where each and every project is supposed to

have 10% of their units for low-income people. that means 225 of those apartment building complexes is supposed to be for low-income and very low-income bracket people and you're not using it. then you turnaround and wonder why you've got so many people on the street. you're contradicting yourself. >> president cohen: next. >> supervisors, today, i was here earlier, and i ran to the m.t.a. meeting, and i ran to the education outreach and training committee meeting limpgnked to sunshine. and the common theme is the lack of quality of life issues. now i commend the three supervisors -- more than three supervisors have their heart in the right place, but we're

getting closer to having empathy for the poor, the seniors. i go incognito into the camps to have that segment of the population -- help that segment of the population, so i know. but we still have supervisors who wheel and deal. so you know, it affects them so much that they won't even work with their fellow supervisors. they want to take a stand, oh, this didn't come to me at the right time. it doesn't matter. what matters is that we take care of our seniors, that we take care of our poor, that we stand tall and represent. that's what matters. now, this $30 million that i don't know how it was spent, and now, the mayor came here, and she made a statement on behalf of all of you all, that all of you all agree, so she said, that that $30 million will be -- you know, the missing $30 million is

not going to affect anybody, and do whatever it takes -- people won't suffer. listen, we have a government, and there's a process. we have to learn humility. otherwise, this city -- and i'm going to say is loud. this city will fall flat on its face. thank you very much. >> president cohen: next speaker. >> i'm requesting the overhead projector. it is mere consequence dense that i'm bringing this issue on the 50th anniversary of tomi smith and carlos smith's

protests at the olympics in 1968 to address racism and injustice. it is no coincidence that i'm bringing this on the opening day of the n.b.a. season. as you may know, i am the author of proposition i. it was defeated in the june 2018 election. it got 42% of the vote. that's 98,000 people who agreed with me. what did they agree to? they agreed to me, with me, that san francisco owes oakland an apology for how it grabbed the warriors from oakland. and in the coming weeks, i'm going to describe why you owe the city of oakland an official

apology. now i know i'm not going to get it, but i'm way ahead of you on this. but i'm saying, in this illustration, where it shows the late mayor ed lee, stealing oracle for san francisco, i should be able to put up or shut up when i make that statement. so i'm going to be doing that, beginning next week. and i'm saying that san francisco, you should be ashamed of yourself. a world class city helps its neighbors, it does not help itself to its neighbor's jewels. >> president cohen: next speaker -- next speaker, please. >> the bible says trust in the lord, with all thine heart, in all thy ways, al knowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

that word, i say, ye know, which was published throughout all judea, and began from galilee, how god anointed jesus of nasareth, who went about doing good and healing, all that were owe pressed of the devil, for god was with him, and we are all witnesses of things which he did, both in the land of the jews and in jerusalem. unto witnesses chosen before god, even unto us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead, and he commanded us to preach unto the people and to testify that it is he which

was ordained of god, that in his name, who so ever believe in him shall receive remission of sins. whole peter spake these -- that on the gentiles also was poured out the gift of the holy ghost. do you realize what you just said there? >> president cohen: next speaker. >> do we have a quorum? >> president cohen: yes.

>> peter dreckmeyer. i'm with the tuolomne river trust, and i want to thank supervisor peskin his plan in support of the bay area water delta plan, and the other supervisors who have cosponsored that. i want to mention there are some speakers that had to leave, but the environmental and fishing communities are really united behind the bay delta plan. it's a really high priority for us. i've worked for the tuolomne river trust, and we've had some good times with the sfpuc at getting things done, but i've appalled what they've done on the bay area delta plan, really stifling public dialogue about it. they've had two meetings -- two public meetings in a two-year period, and we had to lobby for both of those. and there was 1.5 years in between them. and now, what's happened is they

are working behind the scenes with the trump administration to put pressure on -- from department of interior on the u.s. fish and wildlife service. it really casts a bad light on san francisco. we have one of the most dynamic ecosystems in the world here with the bay delta, and it's collapsing under our watch. it's unconshonabcoinable that s francisco should be in bed with the trump administration to do that. i do want to say there was one public entity that did have a debate on the bay delta water quality control plan. bosca hasn't had any voted, san francisco hasn't had any votes, but the city of palo alto had

votes, and after hearing from -- [inaudible] >> preside >> president cohen: next speaker. >> denise lewy. resident of san francisco my entire life. my household averages 12 gallons perperson perday. we want our water savings to go to the environment, not to other businesses or agriculture. today you've heard many citizens speak on behalf of the environment and sustainability. kris in a pappas, president of the league of san francisco voters asked to convey the support for the league's water

plan. we have no ballot measure to vote whether san francisco should support the state water conservation plan, so we're counting on you to take action to ensure that the p.u.c., one, stop opposing the plan, and two, stop talking about litigation, should the plan be approved. you doept have to be an expert -- don't have to be an expert on water, eco systems, or endangered plan and animal species or even climate change to know that humans have affected all of these to potentially disastrous effects. our natural resources are being degraded by our population numbers and lifestyles. i urge you to go on record as individuals or as a body to let the state water board know that you support the bay delta water conservation plan. maybe you can even get the p.u.c. on the right side of

this. thank you. >> president cohen: next speaker. >> good evening. i'm eric young, and i'm here on behalf of trout unlimited, which is an organization that represented thousands of anglers that are concerned about the watershed that supports thousands of steelhead and trout. i am the president of the golden gate chapter and past president of the state council. first of all, we'd like to thank supervisor peskin for his resolution. 65% of the state's native species will be extinct in 100 years if present trends continue. the san francisco p.u.c. is now taking a position that is contrary to science and is

opposed by our recreational fishing and conservation members who believe that it will damage the eco systems of affected rivers, streams, and the san francisco bay and delta. the state water resources controls board's proposal for increases flows on the tuolomne and other rivers that flow into the san joaquin is already a compromise, let than what the scientific report does prepared for the proceeding, other agencies, major academic institutions, and conservation groups have stated is needed to restore healin restore healthy salmon runs. people in san francisco are world leaders of innovation in every sector, and we should be leaders for this sector, as well. we hope that the san francisco board of supervisors will reject the san francisco p.u.c.'s efforts to defeat the state water board proposals to maintain 40% of the river's flows. instead, follow the science and

direct the san francisco p.u.c. to work with all stakeholders on developing local and regional water supplies while diverting less water from the tuolomne. thank you. >> president cohen: next speaker. >> good evening, madam president, members of the board of supervisors. my name is doug obiji, and i'm a senior council with the defense resources council here in san francisco. i've spent the last ten years working on the bay area delta water quality plan. we can do better, and san francisco epitomises that. working together, we can sustain the economy and restore the health of the environment. today, on the tuolomne river, primarily due to the

agricultural water districts, but with diversions from san francisco, more than three-quarters of the water is diverted in an average year. it's not surprising that we've seen or native salmon populations crash. this is a resource that belongs to all of us, and we can do better. i want to thank supervisor peskin for introducing his resolution and look forward to continued dialogue with the board of supervisors, so that we can push the p.u.c. to take an environmentally responsible position rather than a knee jerk position to requiring flows in the river. thank you. >> president cohen: next speaker. >> good evening, madam chair and members of the board of supervisors. i'm chris shoots.

i'd like to support supervisor peskin's resolution and give you some context about why it's important for you to weigh in. on october 1, the u.s. fish and wildlife service wrote a letter to the nerl energy regulatory commission retracking its january flow recommendations for the tuolomne river. in its october 1 do over letter, the u.s. fish and wildlife service agreed to the flows recommended on the lower tuolomne. this retraction followed lobbying of elected officials and senior officials of the department of interior by representatives of the irrigation districts and the sfpuc as well as a visit by secret of the interior ryan zinke. now, the service will plan flows that do not interfere with the

project's operation related to water supply and management. this was a good old fashioned beat down of a federal fish agency by the trump administration. the next stop is the state water board, where the department of the interior is openly threatening to disobey and ignore state regulations on flow and water quality. staff of the sfpuc have told us they've been at arm's length from some of this political maneuvering. we urge the board to support supervisor peskin's proposed ruz resolution plan and the delta plan consistent with bay area values. thank you very much. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. i am cindy charles. i am a native san franciscan, i've been fishing on the tuolomne river since i was a kid. i wanted to thank supervisor peskin for his resolution.

i am also here to state that i am deeply disappointed at the actions and the attitude of the san francisco p.u.c. with regard to the bay delta plan, the state water board bay delta plan. i have been attending some of these meetings, i've made comments. i am very disappointed in their attitude or their position of aligning with the trump administration in opposing the state water board plan and undermining the science. i have fished the tuolomne for many years. i am seeing it degraded. it's time to get things fixed, otherwise, it's pretty much over for the native fishes. i just want to thank you for this opportunity to share my comments. thanks. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker.

>> hello, supervisors. i'm john mcmannis. i sent all of you an e-mail yesterday urging your support for the resolution supervisor peskin introduced. i don't know how much of what make sense in our e-mail, but we'd be happy to follow up with meeting with you or your staff how the position of sfpuc runs counter to the jobs of many of our members in the salmon industry. it's odd that the san francisco p.u.c. is taking a stand in opposition to the state water board. you would think the state water board is some radical group. it's not. its position is informed by the california department of fish and wildlife. you've got two state agencies in

agreement that the delta and bay are drying, and the p.u.c. is saying we can't give up one drop. it doesn't resonate with the values of san franciscans, and i say that as a native san franciscan. i've been here all my life. again, to go with the sfpuc, basically embrace is taking the fish out of fisherman's wharf. we don't have salmon, that's for sure, if they have their way. it's just remarkable that i'm sitting here listening to others saying that the sfpuc is carrying water for the trump administration. we look to all of you as the back stop to the sfpuc, and we hope that you support the peskin resolution. thank you, supervisors. >> barry nelson with western water strategies and golden gate salmon association. we're -- and i would also like

to support and thank mr. peskin for introducing his resolution. we're not here today solely to talk about the tuolomne river. the tuolomne river is part of the larger bay delta estuary. there are 23,000 salmon fishing jobs in california, and frankly, those won't survive. the salmon fishing men on fisherman's wharf, the fishing boats, they won't survive. it is the most important salmon fishing. this is local jobs, local, healthy, sustainably produced foods right here in your community. we're here today because amazingly, despite the fact that our salmon are collapsing, the

sfpuc has been aggressively fighting protections for salmon and protections for san francisco bay, and it's recently come to light as you've heard, that the p.u.c. has been working with the trump administration to undermine protections for salmon fishing that -- for salmon. that just strikes us as remarkable. the science on this issue is resolved. greenhouse gases contributed by the change, smoking causes cancer, we need more flows passing through san francisco bay. you know these things. there is literally decades, mountains of scientific evidence over the last quarter century demonstrating this. we know this. there is no uncertainty here. the sfpuc simply doesn't have a leg to stand on, and that denial of science, denial of protections for san francisco bay, denial of protections for local jobs -- [inaudible] >>clerk: thank you for your

comments. sfgov, there's a -- >> okay. here we go. my name is dave warner. it's an honor to speak with you today. you guys are a very diverse board, which i think it wonderful. boy, was i surprised to see san francisco was opposed to the state water board's bay delta plan. i thought we were among the most environmentally conscious in the state. then i learned that los angeles was planning to reduce their water imports from 85% to 50%. if we were to match los angeles, supporting the delta would be a piece of cake. then, i was learning that santa monica was reducing their imports to zero. san francisco, our water

diversions cause severe environmental damage, and we're pretty fixed at water coming from the sierra past, present, and future. today, 85% is the same thing for los angeles, but thanks to an apparently adored mayor, they're reducing to 50%, and they could go to zero imports by 2050. the sfpuc has been moving slowly. i've been going to their meetings for two years ago, but no movement. when elected officials like you get involved, results happen. years ago, the santa monica city council voted to eliminate water imports, which they are now close to achieving. just a couple of months ago, the p palo alto voted to support the

water reduction plan. >>clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> madam president, members of the board of supervisors, my name seas noah oppenheim. i'm the executive director of the north coast fisherman's organization, representing ports from santa barbara to alaska. based here in san francisco. i am the president of san francisco. i'm here to speak to you on behalf of our industry, imploring you to support supervisor peskin's resolution. thank you, for those of you who have joined him, thank you. for those of you who haven't, i hope you will take the time to learn about what it take to see preserve and -- takes to preserve and protect one of our most cherished resources here in san francisco. if we don't change the course of

devastation in our rivers, we won't have a salmon fishery, we won't have sport fishing on fisherman's wharf, which brings millions of dollars of revenue in our city. we've had two completely closed season in the last ten years, and two severely curtailed. we are staring at the brink of complete failure, and this is a choice. this is an active decision that water managers, state and federal agency appointees have made. i hope that you won't make it, as well. i hope that you will support the salmon fisheries that we all love and support mr. peskin's resolution. thank you for your time.

>> president cohen: are there any other speakers after mr. gilberti? all right. mr. gilberti -- you'll be our last speaker tonight. >> tom gilberti. thank you. bravo on 56. when recessions come, recipients lose hours. we somehow survive. we need to repeal costa hawkins. let people have a chance at rent control and stay in their place instead of getting evicted for these -- okay. dignity homes for seniors. how many -- did we get -- in mission rock, how many are we getting at india basin? city -- the city missed and is missing chances to have our less fortunate, our seniors, in homes that are being built.

we need to connect our weaves, the weave of our society again. ten months ago in this chamber, i remarked about when we were establishing an official starting line for the new mayor, and we kind of pulled president breed back from interim mayor. i had remarked that i had hoped if she did become mayor, i would be pleasantly surprised by what she would promote. and yes, on safe injection sites, yes on recruiting police from our local neighborhoods, but a big no -- she fell on the wrong side of the fence on make r measure c, giving up $300 million for the city, that we need, that we need, and we will need more, but we're going to have to do well with what we've done. we need to let our local people and our