center they have a high-quality interaction with experts to guide then rather than filling iin forms. they will have good conversations with our staff. >> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am the chair, aaron peskin, joined by committee member, dean preston, and soon to be joined by supervisor ahsha safai. the clerk is miss erica major. miss major, do you have any announcements?

>> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 emergency and to protect members of the board and public, city hall and the hearing chamber are closed. since precautions are enacted, committee members will call in and participate in the meeting to the extent as if they were physically present. public comment is allowed on each agenda item. the number to call in is streaming across the screen. to participate, call 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-286-9171.

then press pound, and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please dial star-three to be added to the speaker line. you will only need to press star-three ones to be lined up to speak. best practice is to call from a quiet location, and turn down your volume on your speaker or radio. if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be forwarded to the supervisor and be part of the official file. finally, items acted upon today are expected to be heard at the board of supervisors agenda on august 25 unless otherwise stated. >> chair peskin: thank you, madam clerk, and before you call the first item. we have been joined by vice chair safai. with that, miss major, could

you please read the first item. >> clerk: yes. item number 1 is a reenactment of emergency ordinance, ordinance number 84-20, to establish protections inform occupants of residential hotel or s.r.o. residents during the covid-19 pandemic. members of the public who wish to comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-286-9171, then press pound and pound again. please press star-three if you want to speak. >> chair peskin: thank you. and thank you to the members of the full board who voted to pass this ordinance that is up for reenactment today.

i also want to thank the department of public health and my or some of our former colleagues, katy tang, who has been a remarkable liaison between the department of public health and the board of supervisors in this and other matters. appearing before us is dr. stephanie cohen and jim marks from the department of public health, and let me say that i am quite aware that testing is under a lot of constraints in the city, in the state, in this country as testing resources are being moved to other parts of this country where there is much more transmission and death. i am also aware that i have -- i'm not aware of, i have been a

champion of making sure that in residential hotels that exist in northbound beach, chinatown, the tenderloin, the mission, for the most part, which are extremely transmissive environments with congregant shared settings -- shared kitchens, shared baths -- that we do everything in our power to decrease the spread of covid through increased testing, and we've done that in a variety of ways. colleagues, i want to say that given the constraints that i've earlier mentioned, we've been in contact with members of the

s.r.o.s -- advocates and s.r.o.s. to that end, i think transparency and data is paramount. that has been rather opaque for all of us, and i know that d.p.h. has been trying to get that data and, most importantly, accurate data, before everybody. and i want to thank the department of health and former supervisor tang and dr. cohen for engaging in discussions with s.r.o. collaboratives last week. i think that is the beginning of the building of that trust. what i'd like to do is get a presentation from d.p.h. and then, subject to public comment, make a motion to continue this as that data becomes publicly relation and the development of that

relationship, which may or may not lead to trust, evolves. so thank you, dr. cohen, for your work with me and my chief of staff, sonny angulo, over the last couple of weeks, so i'll turn it over to you. >> thank you, supervisor. i'll share my screen to you can see the presentation. can you see that? >> chair peskin: no. >> okay. how about now? >> yes. go ahead. >> thank you for the opportunity to present to you

an emergency ordinance regarding s.r.o.s today. since april 2020, i've been serving as the med epilead in san francisco's department of public health emergency response team. this figure shows our team. we are located in the outbreak management group. we have been growing our team as fast as we can and have an incredible dedicated, talented group that includes nurse practitioners, nurses, social workers, health workers, disaster service workers from across city agencies as well as volunteers. half of our team is bilingual and spanish, and we work closely with colleagues in the

command, including the investigation branch. we work closely with the seating unit, h.s.h., our community-based housing providers, and others. our work really starts with surveillance. as you know, laboratories are required by law to report covid-19 tests to the health department. on a daily basis, all new cases are matched by address to a database of all buildings in san francisco that are s.r.o.s per administrative code section 41.4 or that are permanently supportive housing s.r.o.s. all cases are interviewed, assessed about their ability to self-isolate and quarantine, and asked about their facts.

the contact tracing team then follows up with any close contacts, assesses their ability to safely quarantine, and refers them to i.n.q. if needed and refers them to testing. the s.r.o. team reviews each of these investigations for every s.r.o. residents and reoffers i.n.q. to the case if not already done. as mentioned, we work closely with our community mitigation branch who has a community liaison who notifies the branch if there is a case in the s.r.o. the community liaison provides community assistance to the s.r.o. manager, including mitigation measures and the health officer's order on environmental cleaning standards. our liaison also interviewed the manager to get more information on the information. we try to ascertain the number

of people in the building, and we ask about other important factors, like the number of residents who are over the age of 60, whether there are private bathrooms or shared, whether residents are working, whether people are masking, etc. we then determine the risk of interbuilding transmission based on this case interview as well as other investigations. if a building is low to moderate risk and only a single case or a few cases spread out over time, we conduct a mitigation site visit. during the visit, a team of field staff, dedicated, really cultural competent staff go door to door in the building. they talk with residents, they deliver masks and cleaning supplies, and they provide education and support around covid-19 prevention and refer to community resources -- for

instance, where folks can pick up food and things like that. this is absolutely essential to our prevention efforts. this is really the way that we prevent covid from entering a building in the first place. since april 2020, we have done site visits at 44 s.r.o.s, reaching an estimated 1760 residents, and you see here the breakdown of where we have made visits based on neighborhood, and this really reflected -- reflects where we're seeing cases, and we're training volunteers for mekos and ucsf, and they've gone on these visits, as well. so for buildings with multiple risk factors and for more than one case in a household in a

short period of time, we're concerned that there was a cluster or out -- there is a cluster or outbreak in the building, we do on-site testing. we send a team prior to testing to obtain the names of all the people in the building. we provide pretest counseling, refer residents to i.n.q. creating this list is a resource intensive but necessary step so that we can create the lab orders in advance of testing and so that we can assess the number of residents at risk. we need to test as many people as we can, so we need to know how many people are there, and isolate them from the cohort, essentially, the folks who test positive from the folks who

test negative. what we have found is that many residents -- and this flier here is a picture of one of our i.n.q. hotels. but what we've found is that many residents do not want to go to i.n.q. hotels. there are many reasons for this, including they're just afraid of the unknown. they don't want to leave the family members that they live with, they're afraid of evictions, loss of income, and loss of job. so residents who decline i.n.q., we arrange for food delivery, delivery of cleaning supplies, and try to support them to isolate in place, and refer all residents who qualify to the i.n.q. program. [inaudible] >> can you still hear me?

>> yeah. >> okay. thank you. so we have conducted 27 events at 18 s.r.o., and when there is an outbreak at an s.r.o., we continue to go back and test until we find no new cases. in our partners with chinatown hospital and v.r.o., we've tested 4,000 residents. >> chair peskin: miss cohen, just relative to the seven in chinatown, is that in addition to the 27 or does that include the 27? >> that's in addition, and the seven are not all in chinatown because, as you know, supervisor peskin, chinese hospitals has tested at three sites, but there were four sros that had a number of v.a.

veterans living with them, and in those instances, the v.a. provided on-site testing. those were not in chinatown. so to show you some of the data that i think illustrate overall how we're doing in terms of prevention of s.r.o. residents would be first to show you the positivity rate. the positivity rate for s.r.o. residents is similar to the positivity rate for others, for non-s.r.o. residents who live in the same neighborhood in which that s.r.o. is located. so on the left, you see, since the beginning of the pandemic, the positivity for people who live in the tenderloin has been 6.7%. for mission, 5.1, and chinatown, 2.4, and you see the positivity just for the month of july 2020. highlighted in the yellow,

across those same time periods, you see the positivity rate of those who live in an s.r.o. so this suggests in the absence of an outbreak. an -- out break, an s.r.o. resident is not at higher risk of an outbreak than any other resident. >> chair peskin: and, miss cohen, can we chair that to the rest of the population of san francisco and the rest of the population statewide? i mean, these numbers tell us that we're all in deep trouble, but that we're doing a better job in s.r.o.s, even though they're more transmissive environments. but can you compare those numbers, whether they're all-time or for july, not only between the rest of the neighborhood but the rest of the city? >> so, supervisor peskin, i think it's most appropriate to

look at that question locally. i think that comparison statewide and nationally would not be as relevant because positivity is very reflective of rates of testing, and in san francisco, we are doing much more testing than in other places. and i think i will just show you the next slide on testing and then see if jim marks is available and wants to comment specifically on your question because you have to take this positivity rate into account in the context of testing. so to that point, what we have found is the rate of testing of s.r.o. residents than the rate of testing overall. overall, everyone who has been tested for covid in san francisco, 10,310 tests are linked to s.r.o. residents. and as i mentioned through

on-site testing, we've tested about 1,000 folks, so most of these tests are s.r.o. residents who are getting tested through their health care provider or through our safety net system of access to testing, and that comes out to about 45 tests per 100 residents. overall, our rate is 36 tests per 100 residents. jim, if you are on the line, would you like to add anything in terms of supervisor peskin's questions? >> chair peskin: jim, i'd like to get an apple-to-apple comparison, and i understand what dr. cohen is saying having an apples-to-oranges comparison with the rest of the country to the rest of the state, but going back to my question, that would be great if you have an answer. >> yes. so for san francisco, the

overall, would you go back to that slide that has positivity. so all of the san francisco since the beginning of the pandemic, the positivity rate on about 340,000 tests is 3.8%, so lower than what you see for the tenderloin and mission, and a little higher than what you see for chinatown. and positivity in july, where we've had a surge of cases is 3.55% for all of san francisco. and again, there's significant variation in the positivity rates by neighborhood and by census tract within the neighborhood, so the tenderloin and the mission throughout the pandemic have had higher positivity rates than much of the rest of the city.

western addition and vis valley had higher positivity rates than what we're seeing here. stephanie's point is very well taken, which is to say the less testing you do, the less -- the more testing you do, the lower the positivity rate is going to be testing positivity is probably overall -- and there are websites that indicate this -- questions the amount of

disease -- [inaudible] that said, san francisco is in the 3.38 to 3.55% when surging, and that is lower than the state of california as a whole. i think the rate for california is 6% as a whole. right now, san francisco's testing at about four tests per 1,000 population per day. it's higher than any county in san francisco, so we're definitely testing at a very high rate. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. marks, and i don't know if there's somebody -- i've got a bunch of static on my line, so i don't know if there's somebody that needs to mute -- oh, that is so much better. thank you for that. so dr. cohen, why don't you go back to your presentation, and

thank you, mr. marks or dr. marks. i don't know if you're a doctor, but if you are, i'll call you doctor. i've written a whole list of questions, but why don't we go back to your presentation, dr. cohen. >> great. thanks, and thanks for adding that, jim. so one other data point to share, which i think is a very important one is the last death of an s.r.o. resident occurred on june 3, 2020, and we have found that s.r.o. residents -- the mortality rate of s.r.o. residents is lower than the rate of san francisco and the entire state. overall, since the beginning of the pandemic in san francisco, we have had five deaths among s.r.o. residents, and so that comes out -- out of a total of 502 cases, and that comes out to a case fatality rate of 1%.

so as you see here, slightly higher than the case fatality rate for san francisco as a whole. certainly lower than the california case fatality and the u.s. case fatality rate. i think just as -- sorry. this is also a reflection to a certain extent of testing because through aggressive testing events, we're finding individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease. we're not just finding the people who are coming in sick, seeking testing. i'm sorry, supervisor, were you about to ask a question? >> chair peskin: no, i was about to say something that is entirely irrelevant. please proceed. >> we know that making this data publicly available or available is very important to this committee, to the board,

and to the public, and the emergency ordinance does require us to share data on the s.r.o.s on the city's data tracker, including the elements or specifically the elements listed here. and the dashboard is almost ready. there's an anticipated launch date of friday, august 28. there will be a seven-day lag, meaning the data you see on the dashboard will represent what happened up to a week prior due to the intensive validation procedures that we go through to really confirm the address of each case. in terms of the emergency ordinance on protection for occupants of residential hotels, i think just to start to say that we appreciate and are aligned with the board of supervisors' commitment to protecting this population. we are asking the chair and the

committee to reevaluate the requirement that requires testing of all s.r.o. residents within 48 hours of a single test. [inaudible] this approach is not a strategic or efficient use of our limited testing resources, and we really want to use those resources strategically and efficiently. our experience has shown us that a single case in an s.r.o. does not predict that there is a cluster or outbreak. we use all of our tools to guide us so we can predict where and when to test. secondly, we are asking the committee to reevaluate the requirement to deliver face coverings to all s.r.o. residents within 12 hours of a single confirmed case.

this is section 3.g.4. we have provided s.r.o.s information how they can get masks, and we reinforce that through the department of building infection, community health inspectors, as well as our community liaisons. we would like to respectfully request a continuance to the call of the chair such that we can obtain verification on some privacy rules that you had requested, supervisor peskin, so that we can continue to maintain our dashboard launch and our overall approach of prevention of covid-19 in s.r.o.s. thank you for allowing me to speak today, and please let me know if you have any questions. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, dr. cohen for taking this very seriously. and let me tell you, as i've

told you privately, that i know that you are deeply committed to the health of our population and the health of this particular set of populations that live in congregate settings, and i know that we are all constructing this plane as we're flying it. so having said that, i would like to first turn this over to my colleagues, supervisors safai and preston, to see if they have any questions or comments, and then turn it over to public comment, and then i have a series of questions that you and i have personally discussed with former supervisor tang that i'd like you to discuss publicly. so supervisor safai and supervisor preston, do you have any questions or comments? >> supervisor preston: no questions, and just incredibly

important legislation. i'd like to be added as a cosponsor. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i'm okay, chair. thank you. thank you for this very informatiinfor informative. it's good to know for people living in s.r.o.s, and thank you for focusing on this. i know when we had our initial conversations, i know this could have been a situation that turned out to be really bad for the community. could have been an explosion in passing as a source for covid, but instead, we got out in front of it. thank you for your leadership and thank you to d.p.h. and everyone here today for all your hard work. i know the minute you moved on this, we were focused on this back in march. >> chair peskin: i actually appreciate that, supervisor safai. when i asked what i thought was

a related question to the rates in s.r.o.s compared to the surrounding neighborhoods, and i receive the answer from dr. cohen, compared to not statewide or nationally, but the rest of the population, for one hand, chinatown, for reasons i had my own nonmedical beliefs about, has fared well, compared to the mission and the tenderloin that are elevated beyond the rest of the population. so while i sincerely appreciate your laudatory comments, supervisor safai, our collective job is to bring the

percentage in the mission and the tenderloin less than the recent average. that is the reason for my admonition and the fact that the department of public health work with the best people which aren't actually a bunch of politicians but are the leader of the s.r.o.s. it is my intention to continue this to the call of the chair. by the way, just to be very clear about that, given what you heard, which is that this data dashboard should be available on the last friday of this month, was going to hear this on august 31. but we will be at the height of our budget deliberations on that day, and we may or may not have a land use committee on

the 31st, so i will continue it to the call of the chair, but it is my intention that this be heard and reenacted in no more than three weeks, and i will ask that this be sent in the first meeting in september as a committee report to the full board of supervisors. and meanwhile -- and i don't think both bridge lines

have been muted. we will need a minute to reestablish a connection. >> chair peskin: okay. take your time.

>> okay. good, supervisor peskin. so last week, i had a good talk with barbara garcia. >> chair peskin: oh, good. >> and we agreed -- i mean, we didn't agree. she was the boss. she agreed with me that, true, some of the s.r.o.s are so

filthy -- and used by the san francisco general hospital. i said what? the san francisco general hospital still continues to use the s.r.o.s for patients because the san francisco general hospital, with a 2-p s $2-plus billion project, there is no reason for that. the officials are bullshitting us. no women should be living in s.r.o.s. let me tell you, no persons should be living in s.r.o.s, and dr. -- i'm not directing

this to you. you're a good person. i can guess you have done whatever you could, but i have to speak the truth, and the truth hurts. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: next speaker, please. madam clerk, are we having technical difficulties? >> clerk: we are, unfortunately. >> operator: supervisor peskin, i think we're waiting for the next speaker. >> chair peskin: okay. go ahead, speaker. >> hello, can you hear me. >> chair peskin: yes, we can. >> this is anastas

anastasia ionnapoulos. member of the antidisplacement coalition. what impresses me in dr. coh cohen's presentation is they give cleaning supplies, but these are congregate bathrooms, congregate kitchens, and this is where it spreads. so, you know, are the people supposed to do the cleaning or the management supposed to do the cleaning? how does the cleaning get done? and the next thing that doctor said was that people are reluctant to leave their s.r.o. well, maybe there needs to be a

little bit more outreach and work to get to these people that are isolated, that their homes are safe. they can return if they're going to go to some hotel to be isolated. so these are things that the s.r.o. communities -- that you can work with them, the collaborative people and, you know, make a difference to people's lives. the cleanliness, and whether they're going to be -- have a home and not be evicted. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you that comment. and while we're not supposed to engage in comment during public dialogue, i do want to say pursuant to one of the earliest. i think the earliest emergency order issued by the mayor, it is actually upon the managerow

that s.r.o. to utilize the cleaning standards issued during the pandemic. with that, next speaker, please. >> clerk: hello. next speaker, please. >> hello. jim fujioca with the chinatown community center. i submitted an e-mail to the committee earlier this morning or this afternoon, signed by the mission s.r.o. collaborative, united families s.r.o. collaborative, chinatown c.d.c. partnership and senior partnership.

i'll extract a few portions of that letter. we are very concerned to learn that the department is requesting an amendment eventually to water down a key component of the legislation. we think that the testing mandate is essential aspect of the order, and that we note that the order has gun to serve its purpose by enhancing testing in s.r.o.s, and the -- what -- what was noted in the presentation by staff is that in some of the tested buildings, there have been more than 40 residents who have been infected. many of those who tested positive, we informed, were workers in the service or construction industry and shared rooms with these workers.

given the high concentration of cases of people of color and people living in s.r.o.s and a resurgence in cases, this is no time to scale back in testing. we note that the department was not in compliance with the order regarding compliance of data until last week, when we received the initial consultation. >> chair peskin: i'm sorry, madam clerk. mr. fujioca, if you could please finish your statement. i am in receipt of your s.r.o. collaborative's e-mail of 1:31 today, 1:31 p.m., so mr.

fujioca, please finish your statement. >> clerk: i'm getting a message from d.p.h. that it looks like the caller hung up. >> chair peskin: okay. yes. next speaker, please. >> [inaudible] and i can support to continue what we call the mission s.r.o. collaborative comments. >> chair peskin: i'm sorry, ma'am. do you support the continuance? is that what you said? >> yes. i don't know if you folks can hear me. my name is deanna florez. i am the director of programming at the delores street services. we signed onto the letter of the s.r.o. collaborative, and we deeply appreciate the elements of this order and want to echo the equity lenses that is needed to address the local

response for congregate settings. it was pretty alarming to hear the overlapping of the workforce and the residents of the s.r.o. in san francisco. we need to have an outreach in education that folks will feel and need to be supported in these resources. we also feel that the city of san francisco can do more to address the challenges that are being encountered in both the challenges around testing and the i.n.q. as well as contact tracing and contact mapping. we believe that there's -- this order should be renewed and reinforced in particular districts and zones, particularly because the mission has 52 s.r.o. hotels, and i believe that seven or 11

have been tested right now. thank you so much. >> chair peskin: thank you, ms. florez. are there any other members of the public that wish to testify publicly on this item? >> operator: we have two more callers. >> chair peskin: next caller, please. >> yes, hi. so i would like to raise some concerns about the privacy of s.r.o. residents? you know, i don't know exactly how extensive the contact tracing measures are, but certainly, there have been some instances where, you know people who have been identified -- publicly identified as tested positive for covid-19 have been discriminated against, beyond just simply being asked to self-isolate, but they've been physically attacked and so on.

i do think it's important that we have public health safety measures put in place, but i also think it's important that we also respect the privacy of s.r.o. residents. and i don't know how expensive these contact tracing measures are, but i think it could possibly set a dangerous precedent for future outbreaks. and so, again, that's my main concern with this legislation, so that's -- thank you. that's all i have to say. >> chair peskin: thank you for those comments, and when public comment is closed, i'm going to ask d.p.h. about some questions

that will probably not be fully answered in regards to public health and these comments. next speaker, please. >> hello? >> chair peskin: yes, please proceed. >> hello? >> chair peskin: yes, we can hear you. >> my name is eric marcoux, and i'm i'm on the neighborhood council and soma resident. [inaudible] once someone positive in an s.r.o. has occurred. i just believe these places are -- once something happens, it can go like wildfire, you know? you've got to stay on top of

it. also, the data has been incomplete. they're supposed to give us daily update on it, and that should be done, as well. these populations are really -- it's just the populations of s.r.o.s are frequently low-income or seniors or people of color, and testing should be available especially to these populations. >> chair peskin: thank you for your comment. are there any other members of the public wishing to testify on this item number 1? >> operator: we have one more caller. >> chair peskin: next speaker, please. >> hello. regarding item number 1, this just invades the privacy, and again, the city -- it would

make its policy to place the residents in solitary confinement and isolation hotel rooms, you know, that's -- i don't support this policy. i think it's an invasion of privacy, it's an invasion of personal liberty and freedom, and just because you're poor and have to live in an s.r.o. doesn't mean that your freedom and right to choose who you want to be is violated. thank you. >> chair peskin: are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item? >> clerk: we have no more callers. >> chair peskin: thank you to clerk staff for that, and seeing no more callers, public comment is closed. dr. cohen, i'd like to drill

down into notification and how that actually works, and if you can explain that to all three of us, none of whom are doctors, and the public, that would be really helpful to me. >> thank you for that -- for that good question. i think that you and many other people who work with this population there's a big range of s.r.o.s and a big range of buildings that are defined as s.r.o.s through the administrative code. some of them have rooms with provide bathrooms. the degree of congregate space in each building is actually quite variable? and in addition, the specifics of each case are quite variable. so a single case in an s.r.o. does not necessarily predict that there will be many cases in that same s.r.o.

in many cases, we find that a resident works, and, for instance, was tied to an outbreak at their workplace and actually was in isolation and quarantine before they even tested, so maybe weren't on-site during the time that they were infectious, and those are the type of details that we are able to look into during our investigative process. the reason that's important is going into a building and not finding any cases is not a good use of our resources, so when we go test, we want to test in places, and we want to find cases there. and that is really the purpose of the risk stratification. the test doesn't do any good. it doesn't protect the individual who was tested, and it doesn't protect the

individual's loved ones, work colleagues, etc. the goal of the testing is to find cases, so we want to go to buildings where we know there's a risk for multiple cases in that building. >> chair peskin: so there are any number of questions -- thank you for that explanation. why don't we move to the notions of privacy, which i have been very vexed by not only because our society's outlook on privacy and public rights that i'd like to be i've been a champion of for a long time. but i've heard from the community, and it's been unclear to me, as a disease which comes with stigma, where the city wants to wraparound --

wrap our arms around these cases and provide opportunities for isolation and quarantine without financial burden for things like p.p.e., to make managers and owners of these buildings to do their part. it is unclear how hipaa works. probably some of this should be the subject of a presentation by the county attorney of their findings, but if we could riff off of that a little bit. >> i think the city attorney is the best suited to comment, but i will say that as a physician who takes care of patients as my regular job, protecting each

individual's private health information is, of course, a tenet of our work. and it's really only in very unusual circumstances that we would risk disclosing someone's personal health information, including their covid status, for the sake of public health. right now, as you know in san francisco, there's widespread community transmission, and people are at risk of coming down with covid wherever they go, so they need to follow the mandates of social distancing, masking, and hand washing whenever they're out in the world. it's hard to find an exception around that core tenant

protecting a resident's personal information. >> chair peskin: no, the issue is really about making sure that other residents of these congregate settings have access to information that d.p.h. and other health officials have that i get not through d.p.h. but through the community because after 20 years of working in the community comes to me. and as we discussed yesterday -- and thank you for your candor yesterday -- the department of public health says we have an outbreak at m.s.c. south. the department of public health says we have an outbreak at public circle or laguna honda. it's not very hard to figure out where those addresses are. yet in the same breath, i am

aware of and you are aware of -- despite the fact that you can't tell me, but the community tells me of any number of other addresses, and some of those, your stratification -- i mean, not you, personally, but the health department's stratification, and you have -- whether or not we're in contravention of the community ordinance that we're talking about today and reenacting today, that you have implemented in an amount without wasting resource. and in other cases, in an unnamed building in chinatown, where you, we, were first informed early this month that went from four cases to ten cases, that stratification didn't work, and privacy was not our friend. and that's both a question and a comment. and to add to that question and

comment, you stated earlier pursuant to the originally enacted legislation on may 19 that there is an affirmative obligation to contact the manager. and, indeed, in the case of the afo aforementioned but not identified building, you did that. but there's also an obligation to contact the owner, and owners are actually much more responsible and have a much higher obligation as the owner relative to sanitation standards, relative to what one of the earlier callers spoke about, which is allaying fears of isolation and stigma. so i want to get our arms around how we not only notify managers of professional buildings, but managers of

those buildings. so i know those are two different questions, but if you want to riff off of that, go ahead. >> sure. thank you. so as of the duty to warn, the obligation to warn people in a building, we do notify close contacts of individuals in an s.r.o., but not every resident in an s.r.o. meets the c.d.c. definition of a close contact to covid, so that's where the risk stratification comes in. one the positivity in the building is high enough, we do consider the entire building is close contact, and we offer -- not require, but offer isolation and quarantine in hotels to all the resident. but for residents in a multiunit, multistory building

with provide baths and provide kitchens where the person maybe got tests two weeks after their symptoms began and are no longer infectious, all of these things come into play and there's not an obligation to notify every single person in the building. so it's complicated because there's so much rumor and there's so much fear around this infection in our community? and people hear things or they see things. they hear someone coughing, and they make assumptions. it's really hard to filter through that, and that is what our team is trying to do every day to make the best decisions for the folks in the building. so that's the first point around your decision to notify. the second point is, we were not notified of the case in the beginning of august, and we

identified that as a high-risk building immediately, worked with our partners at mekos to get the fliers going up. that's a community that needs a lot of additional support. we were back at that building today. we'll probably be back at that building again next week, and it's very upsetting. there's older folks in the building, and it's not what we want to see, but it's what our attem team is here to respond to. i think our stratification did work. i am as disappointed as you that there is an outbreak at a building in chinatown, and the unfortunate thing with covid, again, is we're experiencing a surge, and the only way to prevent it from affecting these buildings is to keep it from entering in the first place.

the last point, your statement about owner versus property manager, i think we need to make changes to our process based on that feedback, and we're very open to doing that and working with you to figure out how to do that. >> chair peskin: thank you, dr. cohen. we can do that in public or in provi private the rest of this week. i do want to thank you for all of the work that you and your team and your colleagues are doing. and if i have one request or admonition, is the best people in this aren't supervisors -- and yes, they are partly doctors and health professionals, but primarily, they are the folks in the community who have advocated for generations of folks who

have lived in these buildings who have always been vulnerable but now are particularly vulnerable. and i am -- maybe proud is the wrong word, but deeply appreciative that as least as to the s.r.o.s in chinatown, those numbers remain below that 3.38 and 3.55 number. i not only want to keep that number down in chinatown, but i want to replicate that number with the latinx community in the mission, i want to replicate that number with the many communities that are low-income/disadvantaged in the tenderloin, and that's why that's so important and why i've pushed on this. having said all of that, my admonition is the best people that you can work with are the representatives, the advocates of those communities, and i know you're committed to doing

that, and i know you're committed to making all of this information public and transparent. and with that, if there are no comments or questions from supervisors safai or preston, i would like to make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair but intend to hear this no later than the first meeting in september. hearing no objection, madam clerk, roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: thank you, madam clerk. madam clerk, can you please read item number 2. >> clerk: yes. item number 2 is an emergency ordinance to temporarily prohibit construction projects in buildings with any residential rental units that require the suspension of water or utility service to

residential tenants without providing alternative sources of water and power or reaching an agreement with tenants due to the covid-19 pandemic. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number 415-655-0001, press 146-286-9171. please press pound, and pound again, and press star-three to provide public comment. >> chair peskin: thank you, madam clerk.

members of the committee, we heard this item last week. are there any members of the public who would like to provide public comment? >> operator: we have one caller. >> chair peskin: first speaker, please. >> clerk: hello, caller? hello, caller? >> operator: the caller has unraised their hand. >> chair peskin: are there any other members of the public on this item number 2? >> operator: there are no more callers on the line. >> chair peskin: and before i ask my colleagues for their questions, comments, and make a motion, i will say that there were some suggestions that were

made with regard to removing from this shelter in place ordinance removing buildings that were undergoing seismic recei retrofits, and i will say i do believe our colleague, supervisor mandelman, is working on introducing legislation to extend the deadline of the fourth and final tier of those mandated retrofits, which is why i chose not to accommodate those potential amendments. and with that, i will turn it over to colleagues. supervisor preston, or supervisor safai. i see supervisor safai's physical hand up. do you have any questions or comments? >> supervisor safai: yes. i appreciate that because that answered one of my questions today, chair peskin, about the seismic retrofit, so i think

that's good. i think that can be very disruptive, similar to what you've referred to during this time of sheltering in place, of sheltering in peace. the one thing that gives me concern that i want to talk about with you is the mandatory fire system upgrades because that is something that we've talked about many years on this board. i know it's something that you've put a lot of time and effort into. in regards to the conversation with s.r.o.s, a few years ago, we had that horrible fire in the mission where the systems were not upgrades, the sprinklers were not in, so it seems to me we would extend the seismic portion of this conversation, because it seems to me that we're buying ourselves more time, but the seismic thing is something that could happen any time, and it's

something that's been happening very often in my district, or at least we've experienced quite a few fires in my district. i'd like to hear what you have to say, but it seems like making an exemption for fire system upgrades would be a smart amendment, unless you're looking at another amendment. >> chair peskin: so let me just ask you, are you referring to then-supervisor, now governor newsom's sprinkler ordinance that i amended three or four years ago that requires certain buildings to install sprinkler systems because i believe that that ordinance has been fully or almost fully complied with. so i am not sure what you would

like done? >> supervisor safai: i think there was something that we might have heard related to the fire alarm systems? >> chair peskin: right. so then, let me get to the -- my presentation of last week and my comments of last week, which is, number one, this ordinance says that if there is an interruption in water or electrical service more than two hours, accommodations have to be made to the tenant through the provision of water or alternate energy through a generator enough to power a computer and the wifi service associated there with. as i said last week, it is actually relatively anemic. i do not understand how the insertion of a fire alarm

system would have to do with that -- hold on one second, supervisor. >> supervisor safai: yeah, that's fine. >> chair peskin: yeah. if they shutdown the power, you've got to put a generator up if it's more than two hours to allow people to have a modicum of power during that time. i don't see that as a remarkable burden. >> supervisor safai: i'm not sure either, but i guess it was similar to what we were talking about last time. it could cause some -- ser certainly, it could cause people to have some pause if there's work to be done in other units. so maybe it's similar to supervisor mandelman -- i know it's not the best solution, but what i'm concerned about if workers have to go into other people's units, which would be

kind of a contradiction of shelter in place -- i think the deadline is coming up, july 1, 2021. >> chair peskin: you are absolutely right, and interestingly enough, i've incide interceded in a number of cases, as mr. dicoscio knows of individuals who had to shelter in place in individual units. but i don't think any of that is implicated by this ordinance. this ordinance is quite narrow and quite specific. if you're shutting off the water and power for more than two hours, there are protocols for notice, and there are protocols for replacement energy or water. i don't think any of that implicates what you're bringing up. i think the larger question that we addressed had to do

with receipt otrofits. we heard from a resident of genoa, and as you'll recall, the reason that this item was continued one week was in and around the provisions around creation of large amounts of noise for folks who were sheltering in place to shelter in place. >> supervisor safai: right, of course. >> chair peskin: but i don't that any of that is implicated to the extent that you're raising it for firearm alarm systems. so to the extent that someone has to gain access to an individual's tenant's unit, and it does not involve the shut off of water -- >> supervisor safai: no, it's that you have to enter the unit

and shut off the power for a period. >> chair peskin: so the entrance is not implemented in this legislation. if the turning off of power requires notice and the provision of what could be a battery or could be a generator, i don't think any of that, respectfully, through myself, to you, are implicated through -- [inaudible]. >> supervisor safai: well, back to you, through to yourself, i think probably one of the things that might be worthwhile is also talking to supervisor mandelman because maybe it's a deadline thing. i think the other thing that i've heard from folks that are concerned aboutface they want want -- about this is they want to comply with this ordinance, so maybe we can take this system and put it all together.

>> chair peskin: these are extraordinary times, and we are putting in place extraordinary measures. i am happy to speak to supervisor mandelman and happy to speak with mr. dicoscio as to whether he has any concerns with the current firearm alarm legislation. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> chair peskin: madam clerk, out of an abundance of caution, are there any members of the public who would like to speak? i will reopen item number 2. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in queue. >> operator: we have one caller in the queue. >> chair peskin: first speaker, please. >> umm, yeah. i just have concerns that this

legislation would, you know -- we're having very difficult economic times right now, and so construction -- in some ways, this is a good time for construction because there are fewer people on the roads, and, and so, you know, we need to have that economic -- sort of get back to where people need jobs and allow people to go on. so i have concerns about the economic impacts of that, and yeah. i'd rather construction being happening now as compared to when people don't need to be using the roads than later on in the future.

and i believe that the concern about noise, people are concerned about noise, that they can go take a walk in the park or something, so yeah, thank you. that's my comment. >> chair peskin: are there any other members of the public that would like to comment on item number 2. >> operator: we have one more caller. >> chair peskin: yes. >> yeah. about this whole thing, it's really going to hurt all the businesses and the contractors. they are the ones making a living doing instruction, and i just don't really see anything. we see everyone's already leaving san francisco, so i think there should be minimums, you know, like the building has to be occupied, enough of the apartments have to be occupied at any given time, something like that. there needs to be more leniency in this. yeah, that's all i have to say.

thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. seeing no other members of the public comment, for the second time, public comment has been opened on this issue, public comment is closed, and i will say that -- to the previous two speakers, this is not road construction, my friends, this is construction in apartment buildings in a rent controlled city where we have seniors and low-income individuals who actually cannot leave their house to go to the park. and respectfully, those were two of the more ignorant comments i've ever heard. with that, i would like to make a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendation as a committee report. madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to sent the report -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes.

>> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: yes. item 3 is an ordinance amending the health code to establish cleaning and disease prevention standards and practices in tourist hotel and large commercial office buildings to help contain covid-19, or other contagious public health threats, to require training relates to these standards for employees, provide certain protections to employees as they perform cleaning duties, and prohibit retaliation against employees for refusing to perform work under conditions they believe may be unsafe or for reporting such conditions or exercising rights protected by the ordinance. >> chair peskin: thank you, ms.

major. colleagues, i would like to continue, as i did, with item number 1, this item to the call of the chair but would like to schedule it, if we have a meeting on the 31st day of this month, if we do not, at our first meeting of september. if there are no questions and no objections, i'd like to open this up to public comment and continue this to the call of the chair. madam clerk, are there any speakers on this item? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. sean from d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in queue. sean, please let us know the status. >> operator: there are no callers in queue. >> chair peskin: seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. i'd like to make a motion, pursuant to my earlier comments, continue this item to the call of the chair. madam clerk, on that item, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to continue to the call of the chair -- [roll call]

>> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: thank you, madam clerk. we are adjourned. [gavel] >> amount of money we ac health crisis and where do we go from here. today i'm joined by our department of public health director. today we have six thousand ninety two cases and sadly sixty seven people have died from

covid. until we have a vaccine and until we are in a better place, we know that we need to continue to socially distance ourself from one another. wear our mask as much as possible and follow our public health guidelines. we know that for months to come, this is something that we are unfortunately going to be living with and the fact is, there is still a lot of work to be done. i just want to say a few things before we get into the details of the budget. the fact is, we've come a very very very long way. many of you remember even in january where we declared a state of emergency and we start talking about the crisis and what's to come, and when we shut down the city, that was back in march and here we are. it's august.

we thought that in august we'd be in a different place. i think what's happening with san franciscans as hard as we've worked to contain the virus, it's gone up and down, and up again. we still have a long way to go. as tired as we are of doing what we need in order to keep one another safe, we have to start getting comfortable with it. we have to start changing our behavior. it really is what's going to make the difference because we notice that recently we had to basically put a pause on our oopenning. reopening. we saw the numbers spike. once we saw the numbers spike, behaviors started to change again. now we see the numbers

declining. that doesn't mean we don't have several people every single day testing positive for the virus. that doesn't mean that some of those people, sadly, have lost their lives. we anticipate seeing more. only we can be the solution to this big challenge. just think about it. when we first started off, the big conversations were around ppe and testing and other things, we've definitely come a long way. although, it's clear that due to, what i believe a lack of federal response and coordination with our state and cities, it's been very difficult for so many of us. we didn't let that stop us. we prepared, we worked hard, we redirected resources, we redirected staff from all over the city. we adjusted to our situation and

because of that san francisco has been a model for the rest of the country. i want us to be even better than that. it's up to us. it's up to us to change our behavior. it's up to us especially because when you think about it, sadly, what we see in terms of businesses not being able to open. some of our favorite restaurants and retail shops and places where we get our hair and nails done, they may never return. people who need to send their kids to school because we, regardless of the achievement gaps and equipment we're providing for low income students we're still seeing problems and increase in the achievement gaps. we have work to do. i'm asking people in san francisco to just really change

their behavior. i know it's not easy. i know we want to enjoy ourselves. but it's up to us to make a difference. today, i want to really talk about our budget and the proposed budget that's working it's way through the legislative process as we speak. part of why we are investing $446 million in response to covid has everything to do with the understanding that we're going to be living with this for some time. that's money that i wish we could divert to other things. but unfortunately this is the reality of today. i hope that's not the reality of our next budget cycle. we're committing about $93 million directly from the general fund. again, that's money that i wish we could be diverting to other places and the fact is, it's

going to be important that we're prepared and doing what's necessary to keep the public safe. today, i want to get into our slides and talk a little about our investments so you have a clear understanding of why and what's being invested based on our response based on our budg budget. so let's look at exactly what it is that our response is this year in the budget. it includes 16 point five million for operations. health response. 62 million for food distributions and housing and shelter programs. it's important to remember that this funding really assumes that we don't see any major surges.

if that happens, we will need to divert even more resources. that's why it is so critical that everybody does their part to stop the spread. it assumes that we'll continue to be reimbursed by fema. we all know how the federal government has been. this is only through june of 2021 for the next year. if this stretches beyond june there's even more of a drain on our budget next year. the funding for communications and operations is critical to not only staffing our covid command center but also providing communication in the many different languages and

cultures in san francisco in different ways. 50% of our cases in san francisco have been in our latino community. visitation valley have the highest rates of cases in the city. communication is key in a public health response. thankfully we have an incredible team of people doing this work every single day. one hundred eighty five million for health operations is a lot of money. it's important to understand in the context of all the things that we're doing as a city. we're talking about testing, ppe, surge capacity, preparations, contact tracing, community out reach, out break mitigations and everything else required to fight this virus and

keep our re residents safe. we have massively expanded our food distribution to people in the si city and will continue to this for as long as needed. keep people fed and increase sanitation conditions on the streets. pit stops we chose to expand city wide for an additional $16 million. as you can see from the slide, this is a significant investment. in short term options to keep people off the street. continuing to fund hotel rooms and shelter in place. we also know we need more housing for people which is why this all feeds into our homeless

recovery plan to create six thousand replacements for our homeless residents. these are absolutely critical for our plan to work. building on some of our existing programs as well including our waste replacement, meantle healtmental health programs. educational efforts to support our schools. mobile testing for neighborhoods that are disproportionately hit. these investments in our budget this year as we know, are absolutely critical in order to get us through the very

challenging time and i can't reiterate enough the need to make changes to our behavior. i don't know about you, but as i said before in some of these press conferences, i was a very challenging kid to deal with for my grandmother who raised me. i can remember time and time again, when you tell someone to do something over and over and over again. don't touch that fire, don't touch that fire. you're like, i wonder what the fire feels like. you touch it the fire and you're like, i'll never do that again. that's the kind of kid i was. it feels like i'm a parent telling people in san francisco over and over again wear your mask, socially distance, do this, do this that. really, this is about protecting

public health. this is about getting us back on track. this is not just a problem in san francisco, it's a problem all over world. when you think about it there's some countries in the world that have reduced the virus and gone back to normal. that's where we want to be. the only way we're going to get there. the only way we're going to be able to open the gyms and nail salons and visit our parents and grandparents in senior homes and places they are housed, is if we change our behavior. we listen to our public health expert. especially in places like dolores park. especially in places where people continue to gather and not socially distance.

from our contact tracers, we know that many people who are contracting the virus are contracting the virus because they are having gatherings. they are having family gatherings and birthday parties and other events. you know what? today is my birthday. i'm going to socially distance myself and talk to people op opn zoom. if we all did our part rkts wher, where wewould be today. i know you're tired of hearing it from me. i say it time and time again. i can't reiterate enough that we

need to do our part. we can be a leader and crush this virus if we all do our part. with that, i want to ask the director of the department of public health dr. grant kol fa x fax to please come forward now. >> good morning.

i'm dr. grant colfax director of public health. happy birthday and thank you for your commitment when it comes to covid response. when it comes to shelter in place, a surge of covid 19 cases. our investments in testing, contact tracing and food security among other items have helped san francisco manage to slow the spread of the virus. thank you again for your ladership anleadership and dire.

here is an update of where we are with the virus. as of this morning. six thousand forty two have been diagnosed and sadly sixty seven of them have died. we're currently caring for 88 in our local hospitals. that's a slight drop from last week. it's a 20% reduction from our peak in july. because of our efforts. because of your efforts such as face coverings and social distancing, we have lowered the effective reproductive rate to just below one. the effective reproductive rate or re is a key measure of how

fast the virus is spreading. it's the average number of people who become infected by an infectious before. if it's above one, the virus will spread and it will spread quickly. when the re factor is below one, it's slowing. our best estimate is that re has been just below one, between point nine eight and point nine five. we continue to exceed our daily testing goals and lead the state and nation it testing. in this next phase of our testing strategy, we'll be more targeted in our testing even as we expand testing capacity in the city. last week, we brought mobile

testing to communities with highest infection rates of covid 19. including in the bay view, sunny dale, mission and omi. we are indeed following the day awe to identify the communities where testing can have the greatest impact to identify and slow the spread of covid 19. as you saw in the budget presentation, the mayor is proposing a nearly 56 million-dollar budget in testing next year. that number has started to drop from the high point a few weeks ago. it's a cause for great concern and could easily go up again. this is one of our key health

indicators. anything above 15 new cases per day puts us in the red zone on our highest alert level. we're been there for the past few weeks. we've seen our numbers improving. let's stay vigilant. we've seen issues with the state reporting system that may have caused issues with cases. we see many many san franciscans covering their faces. recent research indicates if 80% of a population is regularly using face coverings we can prevent out breaks of covid 19.

please, be one of those 80%. thank you to everyone who is doing their part to reach that critical mat. why don't we make it ninety. why don't we make it 100% of people wearing face coverings in our city. we know unfortunately some people are not covering their faces complicitily. i see some people trying but maybe they don't know both their nose and mouth need to be covering. maybe they don't know that face could havings are required in san francisco for everyone age ten years and up. if you have any questions or doubts, wear a facial covering. it's right thing. it's the safe thimg t ting to t.

it's like remembering your wallet or keys. it's a habit we're going to need to develop and have with us for some time. my mask protects you. your mask protects me. this is something we can all do and indeed we must do for each other. we must keep up our momentum and stand our ground and sustain our gains and continue to make progress. we're seeing some hopeful signs. as we've seen before this virus is persistent. we cannot let our guard down. please, again, continue to do your part. continue to take caution and care. take care of yourself. call your friends and family. we are all in this together.

we will get through this together. together we have the power to save lives and again, crush that curve. thank you. >> thank you dr. colfax and madam mayor for your time. we'll begin our q and a portion. first we have health care related questions for dr. colfax. what specifically is the city doing to shorten the time it takes to get test results and boboaster contact tracing. >> the turn around times have

averaged general 48 to 72 hours. we did fall behind because of the great surge in testing. we have caught up on that. we're increasing looking to expand our city test sf capacity. those times will hopefully continue to be shorter than a few weeks ago. we've trained three hundred people in contact tracing. we're try to go catcing to catcm the flood of cases. making great progress on that. we continue to expand our capacity and contact tracing. as you see in the budget there's investments to strengthen that work going forward. >> thank you doctor. have any out breaks been traced to a gathering in dolores park.

where are the out breaks happening. >> we know that out breaks occur when people gather. indoor gatherings are more at risk than outdoor gatherin gathering-people doing essential work and need to work in close proximity, we need to have that happen. let's not gather for things that could otherwise be delayed or be done on zoom or in other virtual ways. with regard to specific out breaks, i can't comment on drawing conclusions from the gathering at dolores park except to say that's behavior that we're very concerned about it.

our message continue continues o not gather unless absolutely essential. do not gather out side your immediate household. if you do, wear those face masks and use good hygiene and socially distance when possible. look, when i walk or drive around the city, we know this is still not happening to the degree it needs to be. we need to hit that 80% mark. let's go for 90% or one hundred. we need to crush this curve. >> thank you. the next set of questions are from the associated press. how have the state's problems with cal ready effected san francisco effective reproductive rate. >> it's based on the number of

hospitalizations. our data is not part of that calculation. we're confident in our ability to estimate based on the hospitalization rates in the city. >> how can we be sure cases are going down if there is under reporting by the state's system. >> the number of hospitalled cases are going down in our city. that's what we base the reproductive rate on. it's on those numbers sm the nu. the number of cases diagnosed with covid 19, that number could change based on the correction from the state. we hope to have tha that tha th.

>> thank you, doctor. what are the major factors contributing to the numbers leveling off? >> what we-we can't draw any one action with regard to cause and effect with regard to the decline in the number of cases. i do think a few weeks ago our recognition that we were in the midst of another surge and the reproductive rate was going up rapidly. we worked with comeupit communiy members, key stake holders and people in neighborhoods most effected to work to really get the message out that everyone needed to be aware of this. access testing. if you were in an area

experiencing out breaks to wear those facial coverings and not gather. i hope people heard this and people are doing their part to flatten and hopefully crush the curve. i will say that the reproductive number is just about at one now. we need to see that trend continue so we get much much lower. i'm hopeful that we continue to go in the right direction. >> thank you, doctor. have you considered further restrictions or enforcement measuremeasures foreplaysesmea .

>> we need to give people-

>> thank you, doctor. the next question comes from sf examiner. business owners from the small industry and other personal services have been frustrated that they cannot fully reopen even after sanitation guidelines. what is your level of concerns. >> right now we are on the state watch list and have been since late july. no further reopenings can happen until we're off that watch list and receive updated guidance from the state. and what might be plausible going forward. >> thank you. our next question. if the reproductive rate is not

below is only based on hospitalization and not positive tests it does not include asymptomatic people. how is that viable. >> it's an estimate. it's an estimate that we have been working with u c berkeley and u c sf and cal san francisco researchers with regard to developing a model that takes exactly that into account. uses the hospitalization number and extrapolates that to the broader population at large to come up with an estimate of the reproductive rate. it's publicly available with regard to what the reproductive rate estimate is. you can dig deeper into that on the website which we can

certainly provide to you. >> thank you, dr. colfax. there no further questions at this time. this concludes today's press conference. thank you madam mayor and dr. colfax for your time. >> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's elected assessor. when i meet with seniors in the community, they're thinking about the future. some want to down size or move to a new neighborhood that's closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. that's why i want to share with

you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. so how does this work? prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2% growth a year. but when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess the value to new market value. compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the -- which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. that's where prop 60 comes in. prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors

can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the property value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. if you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your existing home. this means that if your existing home is worth $1 million in market value, your new home must be $1 million or below. if you're looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than 105% of your exist egging home. which means if you sell your old home for $1 million, and

you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than $1.15 million. if you sell your existing home at $1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than $1.1 million. know that your ability to participate in this program expires after two years. you will not be able to receive prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. so benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. for more, visit our website, sfassessor.org,

>> we have private and public gardens throughout the garden tour. all of the gardens are volunteers. the only requirement is you're willing to show your garden for a day. so we have gardens that vary from all stages of development and all gardens, family gardens, private gardens, some of them as small as postage stamps and others pretty expansive. it's a variety -- all of the

world is represented in our gardens here in the portola. >> i have been coming to the portola garden tour for the past seven or eight years ever since i learned about it because it is the most important event of the neighborhood, and the reason it is so important is because it links this neighborhood back to its history. in the early 1800s the portola was farmland. the region's flowers were grown in this neighborhood. if you wanted flowers anywhere future bay area, you would come to this area to get them. in the past decade, the area has tried to reclaim its roots as the garden district. one of the ways it has done that is through the portola garden tour, where neighbors open their

gardens open their gardens to people of san francisco so they can share that history. >> when i started meeting with the neighbors and seeing their gardens, i came up with this idea that it would be a great idea to fundraise. we started doing this as a fund-raiser. since we established it, we awarded 23 scholarships and six work projects for the students. >> the scholarship programs that we have developed in association with the portola is just a win-win-win situation all around. >> the scholarship program is important because it helps people to be able to tin in their situation and afford to take classes. >> i was not sure how i would stay in san francisco. it is so expensive here.

i prayed so i would receive enough so i could stay in san francisco and finish my school, which is fantastic, because i don't know where else i would have gone to finish. >> the scholarships make the difference between students being able to stay here in the city and take classes and having to go somewhere else. [♪] [♪] >> you come into someone's home and it's they're private and personal space. it's all about them and really their garden and in the city and urban environment, the garden is the extension of their indoor environment, their outdoor living room. >> why are you here at this garden core? it's amazing and i volunteer here every year. this is fantastic. it's a beautiful day. you walk around and look at gardens. you meet people that love

gardens. it's fantastic. >> the portola garden tour is the last saturday in september every year. mark your calendars every year. you can see us on the website the commission president. due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect -- i'm sorry. entertainment commission member cities and the members of the public, city meeting rooms are closed but we will be participating remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to the various local state and federal orders, declarations and directives. commission members and employees will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meetings to the same extent if they were physically