adequate social distancing and providing access to sanitation and facilities and food and water. any such site would be subject to a safety plan with 24/7 staffing, janitorial services and such other services that may be necessary and feasible to maintain the health and the safety of those at the site and the surrounding neighborhoods. i want to thank my colleague dean preston for co-sponsoring this resolution and the fine folks at h.s.h. and h.s.a. and the mayor's office for a willingness to engage on these ideas in the past many months and their heroic work for the unhoused population in this very difficult moment. and i thank the leaders pushing for safe sleeping sites even prior to covid-19 and to continue to work with and to push me and my office. and i want to thank the office for their work on this resolution and making effective responses to this.

and i look forward to working with the departments and the neighbors to open up a safe sleeping site at the castro area soon -- as soon as possible. and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor mar. >> submit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: let me take myself off of mute, thank you, madam clerk. i want to start my roll call by thanking president yee for including me in the armenian genocide commemoration and then as referenced earlier by supervisor safai, today together with supervisor mandelman, we are introducing permanent legislation as it regards capping the delivery of service apps like uber eats and grubhub. and, of course, later on today's

agenda, we're voting to concur with the mayor's nine supplemental declaration of emergency which places a 15% cap on the commissions that these delivery services can charge. and as i had mentioned a couple weeks ago at the board of supervisors, my office and i want to thank my legislative aide lee. lee hefner working with supervisor safai and mandelman on legislation, and if anything the current emergency has drawn into stark contrast the need for a responsive -- a responsible regulatory regiment in this area. during the crisis as these companies have reached enormous amounts of revenue, they have had calls they had assessed against essential restaurants and this is a time when restaurants and their staff were

already struggling. beyond that, the same outfits have fought tooth and nail for any effort to properly classify their delivery workers as employees. the legislation that we're bringing forth today proposes a commission cap at 10% as i had mentioned and further prohibits these platforms from fixing prices in their apps. essentially prohibiting restaurants from recovering that commission through a higher sale price in the app. i think this is straightforward and sensible legislation. i want to thank the mayor for her supplemental declaration. it is long overdue. and i want to note that the counterparts in new york city are well ahead of us. they already have done similar legislation before covid-19 emergency. also relevant is our own survey

responses from the delivery and ride hail workers that was released, which indicates that 58% of workers report not getting gloves and sanitizing products from the delivery service apps. 81% reported that phone companies are not requiring companies to report if they're sick before they accept. 73% report that apps are not providing financial support if they're exposed or contract covid-19. i want to really thank the golden gate restaurant association and laurie thomas in particular, and the numerous neighborhood groups and the individual merchants who have been calling on all of our offices for this relief. and i'll add that when we were campaigning across the city for proposition d, this is probably the most frequent complaint that we heard from merchants across the city. i also want to give a nod to

environmental advocates who have highlighted the increase waste implications of the convenience economy. next, i would like to move on to single resident occupancy hotels, s.r.o.s. as you know i represent and supervisor ronen and supervisor haney represent districts with a high number of low-income tenants in s.r.o.s, which has meant that the time and legislative work over many years with the purpose of protecting vulnerable s.r.o. tenants with affordable housing stock. a number of years ago we passed landmark legislation to stop the use of municipal rooms for s.r.o. operators to force tenants to leave before they had been in the unit for 30 days and tell them to come back and to take a different unit after a

few days off, in order to keep them from establishing rent control tenancies. and more s.r.o.s broader protections were in that legislation. most s.r.o.s have a mix of residential and tourist units, all set forth in a piece of 40-year-old legislation in the administrative code. for protections for residential units have proven quite difficult to enforce because s.r.o. landlords move the rooms -- move the tenants around in the rooms. this legislation is as you all know currently the subject of litigation and enforcement hearings by the department of building inspection have been put on hold. so, meanwhile, the warehousing of precious low-income housing units continue, even though rentals are allowed to be shown and leased. i am quite concerned by the

increase in calls at our office, with respect to s.r.o. operators and the short-term tenants during the covid-19 crisis for any number of reasons. and the lack of enforcement. neither the mayor's supplemental declaration nor the declaration that we will discuss as item 26 on today's calendar specifically addresses the plight of these residents who reside in buildings that have a mix of tourist and residential units. and, quite frankly, this is something that we could have and should have addressed earlier before tenants started being displaced. as i said, we have received a number of complaints from -- not only from s.r.o. tenants but from the s.r.o. collaboratives that -- either the sfpd has responded to.

obviously this is a gross violation of their rights and particularly upsetting and offensive, given that the city has stopped offering shelter to residents who have been kicked out on to the street who might have normally gone through an access point to get a shelter bed. so today i'm introducing emergency legislation to create a process for checking s.r.o. residences during this time as well as creating guidance and support for the non-profit providers and s.r.o. collaboratives who have been doing the majority of the work on the ground to ensure that the city doesn't let these folks slip through the cracks. there's a lot more that i can say about this, but i will -- i will wrap up and just say i'm introducing a resolution of support for senate bill 1010, introduced by senator jackson of santa barbara, california. last year this board of

supervisors passed legislation making san francisco the first city in the country to prohibit government use of phishing technology on the basis of its inaccurate nature and its dispro portionate harm to women and communities of color, and enabled by this mass surveillance technology. and and there was legislation to prohibit the facial technology in law enforcement body cameras and now senator jackson sent bill 1010 to expand the prohibition on other biometric surveillance technology for five years in the state of california. and in the context of massive global expansions of surveillance infrastructure, particularly in response to the covid-19 pandemic, there's never been a better time to get out in front of the most threatening

manifestations of that technology. and i want to applaud senator jackson. finally, colleagues, after this board meeting is adjourned, we will have a briefing from our chief health officer, dr. tomas, and i want to thank the president of the board of supervisors as well as the doctor for accommodating that briefing. it will be like our e.o.c. briefings, but it will be available to anybody who is watching sf-gov tv and i also hope that the briefings will eventually be the subject of s.f.-gov tv as well so that we can be as transparent as possible. i do have more, but i will submit the rest and i'm delighted to say that nobody that i know died this week. thank you, madam clerk, and

mr. president, and colleagues. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor safai, you asked to be re-referred after supervisor peskin. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, madam clerk. i think that supervisor peskin said that everything that i was going to say. but i will just say that our intent in this -- and just so it's clear for the record -- we did reach out, we did have conversations with all of the major companies. we did have a conversation, and we did ask them -- we said during this crisis, during this circumstance, we are giving the opportunity to make this gesture and to do this on your own. they chose not to. i think that we've had a couple weeks now and the sky is not falling and i think that this legislation is appropriate and i think that this conversation is appropriate to move forward. and i'm sure that as supervisor peskin intimated we're happy to sit down and to continue to have

conversations and to look at how this is going to affect the industry. i just think that for a lot of people out there they don't realize when you order through one of these apps, the majority of the cost for that order is coming out of the very small margin of profit that the restaurants have. and so many of them have experienced significant, significant loss that our world has been turned upside down. these small businesses represent the fabric of what in many ways make san francisco special. so supervisor peskin and mandelman and i, we have all been in this conversation. i want to thank the ggra, and laurie thomas and ben blindman and the small business commission and as someone as an owner of multiple restaurants in this city for giving us a lot of insight. and thank shawn and andreas from the dark horse, and the outer

merchant, and these folks are on the ground every day and doing this. and so we believe that this is the right way. we believe this is the right path. and so we're happy to continue these conversations and to move them forward and to think about what the economy is going to look like post-covid-19. thank you, madam clerk, and mr. president and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: submit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. today i have four items that i wanted to start off by giving you all an update about -- i have been participating on behalf of the board of supervisors in the give to s.f. advisory committee. and the staffer of that -- of that fund is matthew goudeau who

heads up our arts commission but is on temporary assignment through the e.o.c. on administering and doing the work of that fund. right now we have raised as a city $10.5 million, about $5 million, a little bit more, has actually been allocated to uses. and $2.5 million to the human services agency for food security issues. $2.1 million to eowd, which is funding the programs supporting small businesses and $50,000 loan and the $10,000 grant to micro-businesses. and $750,000 have gone to mohcd, which is going to be assisting households that are having a hard time getting assistance with the direct gift cards that

are able to meet the myriad of expenses that the businesses and families have. and we have also initiated a new adcampaignad campaign and $10.5n san francisco is a good start but it's not nearly in the ballpark of what we need to be. we have a billion dollar deficit over the next two years and we know that families all over our city are struggling immensely right now. we need to raise more money so that san franciscoiams can be there for san francisco. and we have billionaires in this city and to my knowledge we have not received any donations to give to sf-funds. and perhaps one, i'm not sure if that person is a billionaire or a multi-, multi-millionaire, but we can do a lot better. when you look at who has funded give to s.f., it's very much a

heartwarming exercise. regular san franciscoians all over the city are giving everywhere from a dollar to $1,000. that's where we're getting the bulk of this money. san franciscoians can step up who are able to give small contributions, we're really hoping to see the wealthier members of our community step up even more so. what we're launching starting at the end of this week is an ad campaign. i want to give a huge thanks to my legislative aide jennifer wi who is doing all of the graphic design work for this campaign. we have not been out there showing san franciscoians what we're doing with this fund and where the money is going. this is going to change that. for 21 days we're going to have an ad that profiles both donors to the give s.f. fund as well as the recipients. what that assistance has meant

for our small businesses, for our immigrant communities, for our elders who are getting the majority of their food through this fund right now. and then we're asking them to step up and to contribute to this fund as well. i will be reaching out to all of my colleagues asking you to participate in this campaign. i'm going to be reaching out to every elected official in the city and county of san francisco. even our state and federal delegations. we all need to get this fund up to the $100 million -- multi-$100 million range to get to the support that we need in our vulnerable communities. so we will be sending a toolkit out to each of and you then a daily ad that you can use your social networks to get out there. and we're hoping to turn this fund into something really great that we can be very proud of and that we can immediately get that aid out to our communities.

this is one of those donation opportunities that's going directly into the hands of those that need it. none of the money is used for administration -- administrative needs. we're all doing this volunteer. none of the money is going for staff salaries want it's going -- every single dollar goes directly into the hands of san franciscoians who need food and help paying their bills and small businesses that need to make payroll with no income coming in, that we want to see open at the end of this because the federal programs that we heard today from supervisor stefani and fewer, you know, have been somewhat disastrous in their rollout. having closed almost as soon as they opened. our small businesses are continuing to struggle. and this is the fund where they're going to get that quick, immediate assistance. so i'll be in touch with you all about that. but i wanted to give you an update and also any input, feel

free to pass my way and i can pass it to the oversight body who is overseeing this fund. secondly, today i'm introducing legislation to safeguard voter access for san franciscoians for the november 2020 election and beyond. what we just witnessed in wisconsin with the conservative majority on the u.s. supreme court issuing a decision that force voters to leave the safety of their homes during this global pandemic to cast their ballots was truly chilling. president trump himself has been outspoken in his opposition to expanding vote by mail, falsely saying there's fraud and we must prepare now. california had passed the voters' choice act to allow the counties to election into a model where every registered voter gets a mailed ballot with options for those who wish to vote in person. originally launched with five counties participating in a pilot run, data shows that voter

choice act increased the turnout by about three percentage point in the 2018 election and four points in the primary. moreover, turnout increases were greater for 18 year olds, latino, and asian-american voters. it's now open to any county that takes steps to implement it and 10 counties have now opted in. but san francisco has not yet moved to do so. currently in san francisco, vote by mail ballots are available only on request in advance of election day with 70% of san francisco voters currently registered as pertinent vote-by-mail. several states, colorado, hawaii and oregon and washington now conduct all elections by having ballots sent to every registered voter without their having to request one. with voter suppression nationwide and in particularly in communities of color, we can't afford to wait. at this point we don't have time to implement before november, but we can't leave voters with the impossible choice of

deciding between their health and casting a ballot. we can and we must protect the right of san franciscoians to vote. my legislation directs the san francisco director of elections to protect san francisco voting access in the november 2020 election by mailing a ballot to every registered voter, to bring a report to the board of supervisors on how the november election will be implemented and whether we're still in shelter-in-place or not, including outreach to communities with historically low turnout. and to provide an analysis of implementing d.c.a. in the future. we needed an emergency plan for november and a timeline to prepare for future elections. and we need transparency along the way for the public to watchdog the decisions that are made. i want to thank san francisco democratic party chair david compos for raising this issue and sending a letter to director arntz and us and urging us to do this. and for supervisors haney,

walton and preston for their co-sponsorship. the november election may be the most important of our lifetimes, the duration of the covid-19 crisis and when and how shelter-in-place is going to be lifted is unknown it. will provide a secure november 3, 2020 election and a clear cas path for the future ad thanks to my office for having worked so hard on this. next i'm introducing a resolution to urge governor newsome to issue a full pardon to leah beru, an ethiopian immigrant and domestic violence survivor. we ask the detention facility at the county jail and to stop deportation after defending herself after years of spousal abuse. ly had already served time for the crime that she was convicted of when she injured her husband while defending herself from his

violence. leah was never informed of the potential immigration consequences of accepting a plea deal. considering the current covid-19 pandemic and the life-threatening danger of being in a setting, and it's essential that we help her to return to safety and shelter in place with her family here in san francisco. show met her husband in ethiopia and she moved here as a permanent resident to live with him. life became a nightmare. her husband, a white man, referred to her as a slave and used racial slurs towards her. he began to control her movements and with whom she could speak. and the verbal abuse turned physical as he began punching and beating her. he would apologize and promise to change but would soon become violent again. leah threatened to call the police on several oceans and he told her that police would

believe him, a citizen, and not her. and she. told her husband that she wanted to leave and go to a shelter but he refused to let her leave. she felt trapped. while in prison, she did classes and graduated from college and bake are became a mentor for others. in 2018, she was turned over to i.c.e. and placed in deportation proceedings. the sole avenue to remain in the united states is through a pardon. i urge your support to right this wrong and to ensure that leah has the opportunity to live and to be free. and i want to thank my office for helping to prepare this resolution. and, finally, today i'm introducing another resolution urging our u.s. congressional representatives to ensure the inclusion of immigrant communities during the next federal relief package developed in response to covid-19 public health crisis. during this unprecedented moment

in history, immigrants have continued to show a commitment to this country by placing their own health at risk on behalf of the greater population while working as health care providers and maintenance workers and farm workers and grocery store workers and countless other service industry jobs on. march 27th, the president signed a relief bill that excluded the u.s. immigrant population and as a result of this exclusion, millions of individuals, families and children are suffering the worst impacts of this public health and economic crisis. immigrant communities like all other americans who have been impacted by this crisis have a need for economic relief, food assistance and housing security. and as we have learned from the public health guidance, the inclusion of the immigrant communities in covid-19 response and recovery efforts is essential to flattening the curve and restoring the health of our country and our economy as quickly as possible. this resolution urges our congressional representatives to fight for the inclusion of our nation's immigrant communities in the next round of federal covid-19 relief package

negotiations and calls on the federal administration to halt the immigrant detention and deportations and instead to use those resources to ensure access to public health services for immigrant communities. and i would like to thank the staff for partnering with us on this resolution. and for their tireless advocacy on behalf of san francisco and californians and the immigrant communities. i would also like to thank my staff, paul, for his work on this resolution. and i'll just end by saying that each -- one of these efforts that i'm introducing today was worked on by one of my four incredible staff members. i just want to tell them thank you, thank you, thank you from the bottom of my heart. they're working seven days a week from early morning to late at night on every aspect of this crisis. they're in the district walking streets on a daily basis. they're going from homelessness to small businesses to s.r.o.

hotel rooms, there's nothing -- and there is nothing that they haven't stepped up to the plate to do. and i just wanted to show my immense gratitude to all four of them. they're heros in my eyes and i appreciate that. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor ronen. seeing no other names on the roster, mr. president, i believe that concludes the introduction of new business. >> president yee: okay, let's go on to public comments. >> clerk: okay, thank you, mr. president. we have been conducting these meetings via video conference for the last five weeks. and so we have learned that it's probably a really good idea that during both communications and during public comment that we provide the same information. so i'm going to provide the five ways that the public are encouraged to participate

remotely in this meeting. and first of all, of course, you can share your correspondence with the board by submitting via email, boar board@supervisors.sfgov.org. if you do not have the internet submit by u.s. postal service to address the envelope to san francisco board of supervisors, room 244, city hall, san francisco, california, 94102. (please stand by)

. ease stand by) >> clerk: when prompted, press pound, and then pound again, to join the meeting. once you've joined, you'll hear the meeting in progress. dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the speaker line, and i will ask our operations

sergeant-at-arms, mr. qu, are there any speakers in the public comment speaker queue. >> operator: madam clerk, there are apparently four speakers waiting to speak. >> clerk: okay. >> operator: i will start the queue. >> i wish to speak against concurring resolution 200384, which is being heard today without referral. this is a concurrence of the mandatory facial mask order issued april 16. there seems to be a lot of trust, but no verify. the fact that it is being heard before your little chitchat with tomas aragon is very inappropriate.

for asthmatics and those are copd, this poses heavy breathing risk. long use can also cause individuals to touch their faces frequently, and as with homemade masks, some materials are conducive for growing germs. in a city with a living history of the aids epidemic, that's what this mask's psychological war fare is. how do you explain the c-130 transport plane over city hall last week?

the only reason to make such a flight is a sci-op. it is only a period of time before someone shoots san francisco women of color for showing their face. what's going on is not even a heavy flu season. supervisor fewer said today, not one overflow i.c.u. bed has been put in service. >> clerk: thank you, sir, for your comments. >> you have three questions remaining. >> my name is francisco decosta, and while the previous speaker spoke, while you may not agree with what he said, a lot of what he says is empirical data. i've been watching you all over

the place, and come four or five months, we're going to get another wave, and if you haven't learned from this wave of this pandemic, we will fall flat on our face when the second wave comes, so there's a lot of myths and disinformation and bluffing all the time. you cannot bluff all the people all the time. a lot of you talk too much. this blessed roll call that you have, you should be limited to five minutes, just like our public comment is limited to two minutes. most of you all can speak to the point. here in san bruno, none of the small businesses have been contacted. none of the small businesses have received any help. all of the large businesses when the last spiraling of the economy took place contributed to the city.

shame on you supervisors. there are one or two supervisors that really care for the homeless. the rest of you all are just hog wash. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> you have two questions remaining. >> linda chapman speaking for nob hill neighbors. my heart overflows with thanks for those of you who are really trying to get people off the streets and into housing as opposed to congregate care. you will have received thanks from c.a.r.a., when our letter went out. i've been in touch with f.d.a. and c.a.r.a., who are interested in housing older people and disabled people, and i was to have been in touch with the s.r.o. collaborative,

but the phone system didn't accommodate me, so i hope to have the opportunity to talk with your office about it. nob hill neighbors is going to be resurrected by people who are leaders of three different organizations in the past. i was one of the community organizers for nob hill neighbors during the -- well, they were active for 25 years in preserving rental housing and preserving the neighborhood for housing until the neighborhood started to disband it. another lady organized it for a while, and then, she helped organize lower polk neighbors who unfortunately discovered the secret bank accounts that the other officers had and the

corruption that they had. >> clerk: thank you. thank you, miss chapman. >> you have two questions remaining. >> yes, hi, this is peter war field from library users association. thanks, first of all, to the clerk, for giving explanations of how to get in touch with the public, including for those who do not have access to the internet. our public libraries have a long-standing important civic and cultural role in providing

trusted information, education, and recreation, and for free. unfortunately, on february -- on march 13, rather, the library closed rather suddenly, and provided basically only service via internet on a limited basis. they now have added a tip reference line that's only available from 10:00 to 5:00 monday through friday, but it's still worthwhile and valuable. because there's so many people that do not have internet access, my information is about 14% from the census bureau. in san francisco, that's 123,000-plus people. there's a lot that the library could do that would provide service for both those without access and also those with. there could be telephone story

time, there could be expanded telephone reference, there could be taking of reserves, none of which would involve contact with the public or co-workers. books and other materials could be mailed as well as returned by book drops and mail, which would not necessarily involve any direct public comment. some libraries, not in san francisco, though, are providing curb side service, and that would provide another service to the public. all libraries provide a tremendous service, and we would like you to expand what service it's providing now, and especially for those without internet access. thanks very much. >> you have one question remaining. >> hello, just a moment, and let me start my timer. hi. michael petrellis calling in.

first of all, i wanted to point out that the police commission has not met since late february. the police commission has cancelled a total of ten meetings since february, and the mayor recently announced two nominees to the police commission. you'll soon be considering those nominees, and it is very troubling that we do not know when the next police commission will take place. please look into this. my second matter is i want to thank all san franciscans who are observing physical distancing rules and who are repairi helping to flatten the curve of covid-19 infections. and my third item for today is one that i keep bringing up, which is that you, supervisors,

are disrespecting we, the people, by making us wait for your roll call introductions to take place before the public. i'm asking you again to please put public comment at the start of the meeting. put we, the people, before your egos. you use roll call to go on and on and onto thank each other or thank your staff. that's fine. i would like for you to set time limits, as mr. decosta pointed out. you guys should follow some time rules for yourselves during this pandemic. it is not okay that public comment after your egos are allowed to ramble on as long as you like during roll call

introductions. thank you. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: mr. president, i believe that concludes the current queue of public speakers. >> president yee: okay. thank you. seeing no other public speakers, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, let's call for adoption without committee reference. >> clerk: these measures were introduced for adoption without committee reference. a unanimous vote is required for adoption of these resolutions today. any supervisor may require any resolution to go to committee. >> president yee: okay. colleagues, would any supervisor like to sever any items? okay. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i'd like to sever items 21 and 26,

please. >> president yee: and i'd like to sever, madam clerk, item number 24. >> clerk: okay. so that leaves item 20, 22, 23, and 25. >> president yee: okay. let's take roll. >> clerk: on items 20, 22, 23, and 25 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay, then. without objection, the resolutions are adopted and motion is approved unanimously. now, madam clerk, let's go back up to item 21. can you please call that. >> clerk: item 21, resolution to urge the disclosure of additional data sets related to the well-being of homeless san franciscans and residents of single room occupancy hotels, the number and occupancy of available hotel rooms, the geographic origin of confirmed positive covid-19 cases, and the date of covid-19 test specimen collection, and commending the interdepartmental collaboration

which resulted in the publication of the san francisco covid-19 data tracker. >> president yee: okay. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. colleagues, i believe you are all in receipt of amendments to this resolution which reflects updates made that we are all aware of to the data tracker for the public that has been made over the past week as well as conversations that my office have had with some of your offices, conference calls, and conversations with administrative staff. i would like to bring forth these amendments and then continue this item for a week, not because they're substantive but it will create additional

conversations between the aforementioned offices. i also want to mention that it requires a tremendous amount of work from the city administrator's office and want to thank everybody who turned this data tracker site into something that is important to all of us and the public. i understand that some of the data is only recently being collected digitally, so we have literally thousands of paper documents that are being sifted through and scraped for relative data points that the tracker will continue to include new data sets. i also believe that this sort of transparency and analysis is going to be remarkably important as we anticipate outbreaks over the next weeks and months and potentially longer than that as well as

when we finally relax into some semblance of normal. that said, the amendments begin towards the bottom of page 2. they are highlighted in yellow. the first new whereas clause reflects that the data tracker shows the number of covid-19 cases by zip code, which many of you have seized upon to highlight the geographic, income, racial, and other health disparities that are being revealed right now and were set forth in this morning's chronicle. i also note that we are not receiving geographic disparities nationally in

covid-19 deaths yet. next, while i know that other date is not being made public yet, and then, i've updated the resolve clause on pages 3 and 4 to reflect the ongoing data set that -- sets that we hope to have made public in the future. with that, i'd like to move the amendments and then continue this for one week. >> president yee: okay. is there a second for the amendments? >> supervisor rone >> supervis >> supervisor ronen: ronen, second. >> president yee: okay. >> supervisor walton: point of clarity. >> president yee: okay. who's speaking? >> supervisor walton: this is

supervisor walton. >> president yee: okay. supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: point of clarity, we are just voting on the amendments and not necessarily the continuance to next week? >> president yee: yes, just the amendments. >> supervisor walton: okay. >> president yee: okay. motion made by supervisor peskin, and seconded by supervisor ronen on the amendments -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. then the amendments pass unanimously. supervisor walton, did you have something to say about the continuance? >> supervisor walton: i did, actually, president yee. i would like to offer two friendly amendments, if i may. on page 1, i would like to offer a friendly amendment after where it states, the geographic origin of confirmed positive covid-19 cases, on page 1 -- it's either lines 5 and 6 or 4 and 5 -- my lines is crazy, but after that, i would like to add, the confirmed number of covid-19 deaths. >> supervisor peskin: and mr. president, that is acceptable to the author. >> president yee: okay. >> supervisor walton: one more from me. >> president yee: go ahead, supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: thank

you, president yee. and one more, if i may, supervisor peskin. where it states the total number of deaths from covid-19 on page 1, line 21, i would like to add, and zip code of each death from covid-19. >> supervisor peskin: and that is acceptable to the author. >> president yee: would you like to second the amendment? >> supervisor peskin: second. >> president yee: all right. roll call on the additional amendments -- wait, wait. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: oh, yes. thank you, president yee. i just have a clarification on that amendment, supervisor walton. did you mean the zip code of the -- where the person lived and not where actually they passed away at? is that -- >> supervisor walton: correct, correct. the zip code where they reside. the same information we release in homicides and other cases of

death in san francisco. >> supervisor fewer: so i would advise in the amendment, the residence of where the victim resided. >> supervisor walton: i accept that, supervisor fewer. >> president yee: and i'll just ask if that's okay with you, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: yes, sir, mr. president. >> president yee: okay. somebody's typing and not muted. madam clerk, could you go ahead and take the roll on the proposed amendment? [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. so the additional amendments are passed unanimously. so madam clerk, let's call the roll to continue -- did you make that motion already, supervisor peskin? i think you did, right? >> supervisor peskin: i did, yes, sir. >> president yee: and is there a second? >> supervisor mandelma mandelman: mandelman second. >> president yee: okay. so there is a motion and a second to continue the item, so madam clerk, can you call the roll on continuing the item as

amended? >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: thank you. so the motion to continue this item as amended until april 28 passes unanimously. madam clerk, can you call item 24.

>> clerk: item 24 -- item 24, resolution to urge the united states congress and the federal executive branch to expeditiously pass and enact subsequent interim emergency coronavirus relief stimulus packages in addition to the coronavirus aid, relief, and economic security act, c.a.r.e.s., with at least $500 billion more in economic aid and $250 billion more in investments for small business loans, specifically targeting women, people of color, veteran-owned businesses and nonprofits, bolstering community-based lenders and smaller financial institutions, and supporting the san francisco small business commission's recommendations. >> president yee: as almost every single one of you have mentioned and acknowledged in the last few weeks, this

resolution urges congress to act swiftly and equitably to ensure that our neighborhood businesses, women owned, people of color owned, and rural businesses receive a fair opportunity to receive the aid they need. as pointed out again today, we're recognizing that many -- the business relief that's been already available has gone pretty much lopsidedly to the big corporations. so when the paycheck protection act rolled out a few weeks ago, so many of the businesses were simply shut out or jumped through hoops only to be left hanging with no response. the funds were depleted

completely a few days ago. it still remains unclear how many received loans, and i'm unsure of how many businesses in san francisco have no aid in hand. we are also unsure how many corporations are getting aid above hard working small businesses. just hours ago, a bipartisan deal was struck, $321 billion to fund the paycheck protection program, which was intended to provide forgivable loans for small businesses, with $60 billion set aside for small lenders and community institutions. $75 billion will also be to support hospitals and health

care institutions, and $25 billion dedicated for expanding testing and contact tracing. the house is expected to vote on thursday. i also want to emphasize that this is the interim emergency bill going through congress, and that a larger stimulus package called c.a.r.e.s. two will also be in the works soon. there will be a focus on smaller credit union units and the community financing institution, which are critical for expanding relief to our small businesses who don't have the same opportunities to funding as the large institutions. i want to commend speaker nancy pelosi, senator schumer, and the congressional democrats who

have advocated strongly, pushing for not anything less. i want to also thank the san francisco small business administration to help pass regulations to enforce stronger protections. i also want to thank the office of economic and workforce development for their ongoing work. as a city, we need to continue monitoring the execution of these programs closely and identifying accounts quickly. we urge small businesses to reach out and share your stories and experiences with us. i still believe it is important for us to vote on this resolution today to place , to in the official record, and to commit ourselves to helping small businesses. i want to thank supervisors

mandelman, preston, and safai for their cosponsoring of this resolution. okay. so madam clerk, can you call the roll on this? >> clerk: on item 24 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes.

>> president yee: okay. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to item 26. >> clerk: item 26, motion to concur and actions taken by the mayor in the 9th and 10th supplement to the proclamation on april 10, 2020 and april 14, 2020, to meet the ongoing local emergency related to the novel coronavirus covid-19 pandemic. >> president yee: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, colleagues. first, i wanted to start with a house keeping issue. it is my belief that in at least one, if not two, of the mayor's declarations, it was accompanied by legal advice. we all received --

>> president yee: supervisor peskin? i don't know if your video is on or not. i don't see you anywhere. >> supervisor peskin: hold on one second. wait one second. yeah, my video is on. >> president yee: okay. my bad. >> supervisor peskin: okay. so as i was saying, my understanding is that in at least one, if not two instances, the mayor has received privileged legal advice as to these supplemental declarations. yesterday, the board of supervisors received, for the first time, an attorney-client privileged memorandum with regard to one of those supplemental declarations, so the housekeeping item is, i just want to be clear, as with attorney-client privilege

advice, that the board gets, as we craft legislation, that is ultimately shared with the chief executive, that during this emergency period, the converse happens, and i think we are still waiting on one other attorney-client privileged memorandum that has yet to be given to us on an earlier supplemental. but i just want to confirm through the president with our deputy city attorney, miss pearson, that that is now going to be the policy of the city attorney's office. >> mr. givner: this is deputy city attorney jon givner. can you hear me? >> supervisor peskin: yes. >> mr. givner: my colleague had to unexpectedly leave the meeting, so i'm jumping in, but only on audio, not video. that is currently our office's policy to provide confidential written advice to the board

whenever we provide confidential written advice to the mayor regarding one of her proclamations. >> supervisor peskin: okay. so i think there may be one outstanding piece of advice that we did not receive, and we should probably receive those timely, but i will speak to you, mr. givner, offline about that. with regard to the 10th supplemental, this is a question through the president to the representative of the mayor, and i'm trying to understand what precipitated this order, and i have a number of questions, and i'll start with the fifth supplemental declaration. my understanding is that is expiring and that is about to be renewed, so through the

president to miss kitler, is the fifth declaration with regard to he vacatioevictions e renewed today or tomorrow? >> through the president to the member, we expect to extend the eviction moratorium tomorrow. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. and with regard to the 10th, which is premised -- it says that it shall be unlawful for a tourist hole will to remove any touriany -- tourist hotel to remove any tourist staying in a unit, what was this trying to address? >> through the chair, our office was made aware of a

number of individuals who had been sheltering in place at a private hotel, a tourist hotel not in kind of the number of hotels that the city has been bringing on-line but kind of a private hotel that they had booked a -- at a private hotel, not a number of hotels that the city has been bringing on-line, but kind of a private hotel that they had -- not in kind of

the number of hotels that the city has been bringing on-line, but kind of a private hotel that they had booked a room through their own means and had

test -- a -- [no audio] >> clerk [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. so this motion is approved unanimously. so madam clerk, please read the in memoriams.

>> clerk: this meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals. on behalf of supervisor safai, in memory of the late luis echegorrian, and on behalf of supervisor stefani, kathy yoshigochi. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, do we have any further business? >> clerk: there is no further business today. >> president yee: okay. members of the public, you are also welcome to continue

watching. this meeting is occurring under the governor's policy, discussing any business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. this will allow the board to be fully briefed by the health officer and ask questions of him as long as we do not discuss among ourselves or take any -- any of these -- action on any of these. members of the board, please

stay on the line, and if we can give ourselves about 30 seconds, we can ask our health officer, dr. tomas aragon, to be on the line. >> clerk: mr. president, dr. aragon is on the line currently when you're ready. >> can you hear me? >> president yee: yes. so dr. aragon, are you ready? >> yes, i'm -- i'm ready. >> president yee: okay. thanks for joining us today to provide the board a briefing on the latest updated on the health emergency. before we get started, madam clerk, can you please take the roll and call the attendance of any staff so we understand who is present for this update? >> clerk: yes, mr. president. [roll call]

>> clerk: mr. president, everyone is present. >> supervisor ronen: okay.

i've got a question before we begin. >> president yee: let me finish this part first. so let's continue to use the roster so we are able to speak one at a time. please indicate if you would like to speak, and i will call on you. if there is no current speakers, i will turn it over to dr. aragon to share his briefing with us. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yeah. i just find this all very odd. i didn't know about this part of our -- this addendum to our meeting that wasn't noticed to the public. can -- can you explain -- so -- so we can just call a meeting with all 11 supervisors without informing the members of the board of supervisors and without informing the public ahead of time on a major policy issue as long as we don't have cross discussions? it just seems very odd to me. i don't know how this happened and why we weren't informed.

>> president yee: sure, and i'll take a shot at that. basically, this is for information only and to clarify the information, and, i guess, this is, you know, one where we won't do it every week, but it's good to know. no, we're going to do some of these updates informally through our monday through friday briefings, and to give the public some good information. as i mentioned earlier, the governor's sort of executive order that allows public bodies to receive information, and it allows us to do it without setting an agenda. so deputy city attorney givner, are you still there? >> mr. givner: i am. >> president yee: okay.

is that sort of along the right line? >> mr. givner: that's right. your description was accurate. the governor issued an executive order on march 21 that allowed legislative bodies like the board to receive briefings from state and local officials regarding the government's response to covid-19 and allowed the board members to ask questions during those briefings as long as the board members don't discuss among themselves or take any action. the governor's order doesn't require the board to receive these briefings in a televised setting, but i understand you've chosen to do that today. and as i said, there's no requirement for agenda notice for this type of briefing. >> president yee: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: as a matter of courtesy, if one of these meetings are going to be planned, if we could be advised ahead of time so we could plan

our schedules. we attend the monday, wednesday, friday briefings, and this would have been nice to have known before it was introduced at introduction. >> president yee: so supervisor ronen, i agree with you, and this was requested of me pretty close to starting time at 2:00, so supervisor peskin, would you like to weigh-in because this is your request. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president, and thank you for your accommodation. to supervisor ronen, through the president, and through to my colleagues, i actually wanted to put this on the agenda as an imperative item, but i was advised that could not happen. i do want this to happen in a regular form, in a way that the

public has access to this, in this very rapidly evolving situation. i hope that we can actually have a regular item on the agenda where we can hear from somebody who is actually our appointee of the board of supervisors, the public health officer, and the public can hear it, as well. this is our first time out, and -- but i appreciate everybody's indulgence and just wanted not only for the 11 of us to hear, but the public to be able to hear. this is an imperfect start, but it is a start, and you and i and my colleagues have been banging the drums for more transactions, and that was the spirit which i brought this to today's meeting. thank you, president yee, for accommodating my request, and thank you, city attorney's

office for making this, as well, and i hope that this information can be available to the public, as well. >> president yee: okay. so dr. aragon, would you like to get started? >> yes. thank you, everyone, for giving me time this afternoon to go ahead and give you an update. what i want to do is give you a little bit of context from a regional perspective. so san francisco, we have been very fortunate in that we were able to dodge a bullet in terms of the sheltering in place, social distancing, all of the interventions that were implemented prevented a large hospital surge, and we are not seeing in the bay area what is happening in new york city and what happened in italy, so that's one good thing i want to reassure people. what -- but one of the

challenges is that even though we dodged a bullet, we're still very vulnerable, and we can easily tip into a new york scenario, and i'll try to explain why that is. so we know from data that's coming out of santa clara and los angeles counties that there are some serology studies to get an idea of how many people in the population has been infected. we know that santa clara, even though it wasn't a perfect study, about 2% of the population was infected. if you look at the number of surveillances they have in their system, it's a large underestimate of cases or people that were infected. so whatever cases we're aware of was actually a large undercount of the number of infections. that's the first thing. the second thing to realize is a large population is still

vulnerable. uninfected and still susceptible. in santa clara, it's close to 98%, and san francisco is probably going to be closer to santa clara. the way this virus works, it's so contagious, it's being verified by the modelers, the hospital regions across california and also the bay area, that we could -- we could -- we could, if reinfection were to occur, we could tip into a new york scenario. that's the first thing i want to say. the next thing i want to say is if you look at when we started our shelter in place and where we are today, we're -- even though we were able to slow down the growth, the iceberg of infection, that we're now seeing movements of those

infections into our most vulnerable infections. the s.r.o.s, the homeless, long-term care facilities. the people who are not only the most vulnerable, but who have the most difficult time doing shelter in place and all the interventions that we would want. some of our advanced staff are doing calculations, and because that population is big, if it moves really fast through that population, we can still end up with a surge in san francisco, so that's one of our vulnerabilities. the next thing i want to summarize is how the thinking is nationally on how we're going to move forward. the good news is that san francisco really is in a better place than pretty much anyplace in the country because we've been able to prevent the surge, so that's great. so the question is, how do we move to the next phase. we are in what is called nationally phase one, which is slowing the spread and

preparing our infrastructure for the next phase. phase two is about how do we begin to roll back these dramatic interventions like shelter in place that has a humungous economic impact and is also going to have an impact on the community, especially those that are most vulnerable, as you know, the low-income people of color, undocumented. and so how do we begin to roll -- how do we begin to open up the economy in a way that doesn't create a surge that happened in new york city. that's phase two. phase three is we're not even close to phase three. phase three is where we have good therapeutics, and we have a good vaccine, and we can treat the population. so i want to come back to phase one, and where we are now, and what we're trying to do in the city. the way to think -- i'll give you a way of remembering the

key pillars of phase one, and they all begin with the letter t. transmission, testing, tracing, and treatment. under the category of transmission is where we know most of our activities have been. sheltering in place, social distancing, universal face coverings, hand washing, all of these interventions -- environmental disinfection are critical to interrupting transmission. we want to keep those in place until we can pull back on shelter in place. the second is testing. fortunately, testing is improving. back east are using saliva test. i understand there's a home test that may be approved or

just got approved recently, so the testing capacity is going to increase dramatically, and that's going to help a lot in terms of our case finding strategy. as our testing capacity increases, we're going to see more and more testing. with case finding, we have case management and contact tracing. that's the third phase, the tracing component. we have to build a public workforce that can do all this public health management and tracing. we have a component with ucsf, and we've implemented an complication that allows us to hire people who can work from home and do contact tracing on -- to call up and do contact tracing on-line, the whole work

flow of contact tracing. that works fine for an average person that you can contact and get that information and work with that. the other component is the people on the ground. we need to build up strike ste teams, not just for our population, our homeless, our s.r.o.s. currently, we have core expertise and core capacity. we now need to replicate that -- [no audio] >> again, we can begin to roll back shelter in place. and then, the last of phase one

is treatment capacity to make sure that we have both the surge for hospital beds, i.c.u. beds, and ventilators. we were fortunate in san francisco that we didn't have to use our surge capacity, but we need to have it if we see a surge in infections. so that's where we're at in phase one. i do want to mention that the bay area, we're part -- because we're part of california, ultimately, the legal authority of how this plays out in california comes from the state, so we're really waiting for more state guidance on how they're going to anchor their intervention because to the extent that we can align closer to what the state is doing, and that everybody feels comfortable that that is a responsible way to move forward, then that's going to make it a little easier for us to sort of being focusing on those public health components and not getting into these other components where people

are asking me, you should open this up, you should open that up, and it's really hard to know, in my current role, to be focusing on that. we're trying to move to how do we focus on the core public health interventions and align to what the state is doing? so that's where we're at right now. again, and i think -- like i said, we dodged a bullet, but we're not -- we've damaged one bullet, and we want to make sure, as we move forward, that we have everything in place so that we can begin to open up in a way that makes sense for everybody. so let me -- let me stop there, and i'm happy to answer questions -- you may have questions about other components, and i'll try to answer those other questions to the best i can. for example, the map of cases

across san francisco, i can answer questions to things that have already been released publicly. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president, and thank you, dr. aragon for making yourself available this afternoon. i think what you said was helpful for all of us to hear. you did speak to the vulnerable populations and vulnerable sites that we are all painfully aware of, whether they're nursing homes, shelters, or single-room occupancy hotels -- and jails, for that matter. can you show us what our plan is for each of those types of sites? >> so in that -- and that's an area where we absolutely need to build -- we need to build

capacity. so let me start off in the long-term care facility. we're learning how to manage different situations. so the long-term care facility, i would say that's where our biggest chance is for mortality. laguna honda was our first focus because we have 800 residents at laguna honda. we have a workforce of 1500, and it was just a big vulnerability. we had a few cases at laguna honda. we brought in the c.d.c. and the state health department, and they really helped us how to figure out -- how to manage -- how to manage a long-term care facility as big and as complex as laguna honda, so we learned a big part how to do that.

how to confine big parts of the hospital and to do mass testing of the hospital staff and residents. we learned a lot from that, and what we need to do is replicate that across a lot of long-term care facilities throughout san francisco. other long-term care facilities don't have the training, experience, and capacity that laguna honda has, and so our long-term care facilities need a tremendous amount of support not only in p.p.e., in helping them develop a task of testing, components, screening, that component. we need to build out -- i'm just going to call it a strike team -- teams that can be deployed to help the long-term care if a similarities. and we're learning at our hotels and our s.r.o.s. it's the same situation,

especially as testing becomes more available, how we're going to do surveillance in s.r.o.s, how we're going to do targeted testing should any cases appear, and how we're going to do targeted availability. so when have a room, and a person goes ahead, how we're going to be able to place that person into both isolation and quarantine. the shelters -- we're in the same situation in that we're better learning how to manage that, as well. you'll be hearing -- some of this has been in the news, but you'll be hearing more about how we're learning how to shelter in place homeless people who are covid positive, who are recovering or recovered, where they can be all in one location where we have the staff, the personal protective equipment, the

training, we have everything in place so that can happen safely. and we have -- we still have more -- we have more capacity that we have to build up so that we can do that better, more efficiently, and so that we can do that quickly. >> president yee: dr. aragon, particularly in regards to this strike team that you're talking about that would be available if something happens, if this strike team is there, why wouldn't we send them to these nursing homes now and maybe have some prevention instead of waiting until something happens? >> yeah. what i'm calling a strike team is more than responding to an outbreak, it's focused on

inspection. we want them to be inspecting the long-term care facilities before and when and if an outbreak occurs. so we're calling them an outbreak prevention and response team. so we sort of realize the way communicable disease control capacity started is it started with a team of people who were trained to focus on a specific communicable diseases in the community, and now, we realize is that not only do we take that team, and now, they have to be specialized in long-term care facilities, s.r.o.s, homeless, and now jails. each one of those requires a different strategy, so now, we have to replicate -- we have to build out more teams, and so

within that, we have to build more capacity. so right now, we don't have that capacity, so we're looking to -- we're looking to hire more staff. right now, we're working with san francisco state, u.s.f., u.c. berkeley. we're trying to bring in staff, working with c.b.o.s so that we can hire staff to do all of this work that can extend the expertise that we have at the health department. >> president yee: thank you. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. thank you, president yee. dr. aragon, i wonder if you could speak to testing capacity. we spoke if we have enough tests in san francisco. it seems like we have a lot of priority populations that we should be testing that we aren't testing. there's been some announcements from ucsf that they're able to

help with testing for a period of time. how much testing are we doing citywide, and what are the limitations for us to do more? >> yeah. i don't have the statistics on me right now. if you go to the website, it tells us the testing capacity that we're doing, and the testing capacity is finally beginning to open up and finally beginning to increase. the one thing that held up testing was the supply chain of things like swabs. initially, it was reagents. all of that is beginning to improve, and p.p.e., personal protective equipment. it was not really the labs, but all of that is improving, so we're beginning to gear up so that we can do more -- we can take the public health capacity and focus on the most vulnerable populations. and then, the public sector, we're going to hope that they're going to take care of

more of the general population so that collectively, we should be able to do more testing. so you're -- you're going to see -- you'll see dramatic improvements in the testing. it's taken a while to get to this capacity, and also, in the technology of testing. so there are the development of rapid tests that can now, within an hour, tell you whether you're positive -- positive or not. as i mentioned before, there's a saliva test, and there's a home test that will be available soon if it hasn't already been approved. >> supervisor haney: when there was the cases at m.s.c. south, they tested that entire shelter, and it seemed like there was good reason to assume that there may be other shelters that have, you know, large outbreaks, as well. >> right. right. >> supervisor haney: but the policy of the navigation centers and the s.r.o.s and people on the street is the symptomatic get tested, but if

you're none symptomatic, you don't -- nonsymptomatic, you don't get tested, even if you're in this highly dangerous environment. what is your stance on that? >> so i would say we're moving towards developing a deal testing people who are asymptomatic. i think there's going to be a number of people that are asymptomatic, probably like 25%. that's resulted in a real change and shift. we're trying to figure out what would be the appropriate interval, and what is the appropriate setting for it to be most effective, and that's one of the reasons why we went

to universal face coverings is because we know that there are people who are asymptomatic, and so that's an important part of that strategy. and so we're -- we're learning how to do this together with the state. the state just recently, two days ago, published guidelines for testing, and we can make sure that you'll have those guidelines for testing. it includes both symptomatic and asymptomatic testing. >> supervisor haney: yeah, because it seems there could be a need for asymptomatic testing in places where it seems like it would spread quickly. just last thing, when you were in front of us, i think about five weeks ago, just a month ago, we asked a number of questions about homeless individuals in different environments, and five weeks later, for the most part, as far as i can tell, not much at all has changed for people who

are currently on the streets. they are still largely out there in environments where they're not receiving services or not in a safe place, and i know there's a lot that's been said about people who are in shelters and navigation centers, and the very slow pace in moving them into hotels. but for people on the streets, what is your view of what we should be doing right now to prevent the spread in light of the fact that it's been over a month, and as far as i can tell, in my district at least, not much has changed at all in terms of what their reality is and the potential for spread of people that are currently on the streets? >> yeah. you're asking a really good question. i believe most people in general -- the c.d.c. guidelines are pretty good about what they recommend in terms of guidelines around

shelters, homeless, housing. observing just how much work it takes to just do that logistically -- and i have the opportunity to do that because i get to interact with people around other parts of the state. i believe that san francisco is doing more than other parts of the state, and of course, there's more that we can do. what i see as the biggest barrier is just having all the components in place. just the rapid response and all the things that we need to make that successful, as well as having options -- options for sometimes either a -- a -- a person is unable to go to a hotel room for self-care for personal reasons or otherwise they don't want to go there, so we need to have many options that will accommodate the needs

of the option. i' i'm -- needs of the population. i'm sorry. i'm getting a text here. >> supervisor haney: i'm sorry. i'll let other people ask questions here. i know we're getting data regarding other populations, but if our goal is to get people into a place where they can isolate or shelter in place or not have contact with other people in that, it's not happening. and the small movement of people we've seen in shelters and navigation centers, i haven't seen any improvement in people who are homeless, so i just want to flag that as something that needs your attention. >> president yee: supervisor

ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i just wanted to follow up on a little bit of the same topics that supervisor haney brought up. in terms of testing right now, i have been trying to get the entire division circle navigation center, residents and staff, tests for about three weeks now, ever since the first person tested positive. and it's just been one excuse after another, and they haven't been tested. and this morning, i learned in another congregate -- well, in an s.r.o.-like housing unit in my district, that 25 people tested right, and those individuals have separate rooms, so they do share bathrooms, but not living space, unlike division circle.

why haven't all of the residents in shelters and navigation centers been tested? i just haven't received a satisfactory answer from anyone about that yet. >> you're asking a really good question. i can tell you from -- from where i sit, i haven't been involved in those specific decisions. what i can share with you is our approach continues to evolve, and casa quesada is a good example. we're learning that mass detection and targeted screening is a good approach, and you'll see more of that as we move forward? i think what you're describing is a direction that we're moving in, and as more testing becomes available, we're trying to figure out what is the best way to do that. so i think stay tuned. you'll see changes as testing

becomes more available and as our strategy becomes more liberal in terms of testing. >> supervisor ronen: okay. it's impossible to get -- i have so much respect for you, dr. aragon, but i have yet to get a satisfactory answer. everyone says oh, you'll wait and see, we don't feel it's necessary. hopefully, it'll move in that direction, but it's been weeks now, and the staff and residents are terrified. and in other congregate living facilities, we've found that it's very widespread, and i just can't get a clear answer from anyone. i'm just wondering if you're willing to issue an order -- i think there should be testing of every congregate living facility completely. i do not -- it's not a resource issue at this point. we have the materials so why wouldn't we do that?

i'm just really confused and just looking for a clear answer. is it just that we don't want to find out that so many people are testing positive because then we don't have the resources to deal with it? i mean, what is the real reason that we're not testing people in congregate settings? >> yeah. it's a real good question. i'll just tell you the way that i see it. i just -- the way that i see it is one, we have the band width of all of the things that we're trying to do, and as we're prioritizing our activities, at this moment, we haven't been able to do as much as we would like to do? what i can tell you is that as testing improves -- as testing improves -- and i think you will see changing because we're really getting a better handle on how to deal with the congregate living situations and asymptomatic infections.

and i -- i -- i understand -- understand your frustration and concern and perspective, which is very valid, and i will personally communicate. and i know you haven't -- you haven't -- you haven't gotten the answers you desire, but i'll try and find that out for you. >> supervisor ronen: i asked the question to the mayor's assistant, and he said he would get back to me, and he hasn't got back to me. i'm asking our chief health officer, the chief of staff for the city and county of san francisco and i cannot get a clear answer. meanwhile, the residents of the

division circle navigation center live in fear. it sounds to me like what you're saying it's an equipment and staff issue. i just have to get an answer. it's really the most frustrating thing. >> yeah, yeah, yeah. i understand what you're saying, and i think you'll see as our -- our practice of how we're dealing with this epidemic is evolving, and what you're describing is something that everybody is moving towards. for example, in the jail, we're screening everybody that comes into the jail, and they found two persons that were positive, so that's the direction that we're moving into is this focus on asymptomatic screening. so you're absolutely right to ask that question, and i would

say that in general, that's where everybody is moving towards. i think, as i said, as testing becomes more available, p.p.e. becomes more available, we have more staff, you'll see more testing. >> supervisor ronen: okay. so moving on, the second question is almost the same as supervisor haney asked about the people on the streets. the situation on the streets, it's getting worse, not better. in encampments that we've had for years on the streets, we have more people. we sort of encourage those encampments by putting por porta potties by them. this is a population that we've tried for years to get them

indoors, so you can imagine the frustration of individuals that don't feel safe going outside their front door and the situation of people on the streets? we hear that slowly but sure you're getting to people on the streets, but none of us have seen it. all over the east side of the city, there are massive tent encampments all over again. they're not small, like they used to be, they're massive, and those were incredibly dangerous prior to covid-19. now, they're just out of control, and -- and -- and -- and it's -- it's -- it's just not that things are getting better, they're getting worse. so can you talk a little bit more about timelines and strategies and moving people off the street or a different strategy for the street? >> you know, i think possibly the best thing is that -- i'm