>> great. unless there's anything else i think that we are adjourned. thank you, everyone, for your time and patience all of these >> good afternoon. welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, november 2nd, the day before the most important election in our lives. our clerk is miss erica major, miss major, let me announce --

actually, call the roll, miss major. >> call the roll, supervisor peskin. >> present. >> supervisor safai. >> safai absent. supervisor preston. >> present. >> thank you, sorry, safai is present. the only reason i asked for you to call the roll, the screen that i have doesn't show me everybody who is participating, so i'm not sure why this device is doing that. but all right. ms. madam clerk, do you have any announcements. >> yes, mr. chair. due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, employees and the public, board of supervisor legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will participate in the meeting

remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to the statewide stay-at-home order and all local and state orders. committee members will attend through video conference and participate in the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. streaming the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling the number 415-655-0001, again, that's 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 1466007437. again, that's 1466007437. press pound and pound again. when connected you will hear the meeting discussion but will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes

up star and 3 to enter to the speaker line. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, submit comment in the following ways, myself, land use and transportation clerk at erica.major at sfgov.org. if you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and part of the file. and they can be sent also. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisor's agenda on november 10th unless otherwise stated. >> thank you, miss major. could you please read the first item. >> item 1, temporarily restrict

landlords of eviction of commercial tenants during the pandemic. call the number 415-655-0001, meeting i.d.1466007437, press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. mr. chair. >> and i want to start by thanking my colleague on this panel, supervisor preston as well as two of our colleagues on the board of supervisors, supervisors mar and walton for their co-sponsorship. this may seem like an extraordinary measure but this is an extraordinary and unprecedented time in san francisco and i wanted to start by thanking and acknowledging

the mayor of san francisco, mayor london breed, for the extraordinary steps she has already taken in a number of executive orders, and this legislation builds off of that. this is commercial eviction protection legislation, and let's be clear. time is not on our side. businesses are closing every day, not only in san francisco, but around our country and i think we all know that it's not just because of business losses, it's also about inability to pay what we are establishing in rent that exists before the pandemic and no longer realistic in this new economy. and our imperative is to maintain the cultural fabric of different neighborhoods in san francisco ranging from chinatown

that i represent to japantown that supervisor preston represents, and other neighborhoods across the city, and we cannot afford to delay this because if we do we will wake up to communities like chinatown that are decimated with the unique cultural heritages that they represent, and i said earlier today that actually happened a half century ago in the case of the western addition and the fillmore district during the bad days of redevelopment and once those long standing community legacy businesses went away, they never returned. and we have to do everything in our power to do the same in this instance. we all have a shared interest in

the stability of small businesses in san francisco, and indeed small businesses are the vast preponderance of our employer base in san francisco. as a matter of fact, some, over 80% of businesses in san francisco employ ten people or less, and that shared interest extends obviously to lessors and property owners and landlords and small businesses and their employees as well as every resident and future visitor. and to that end, this legislation would extend the commercial eviction moratorium declared and extended by a number of mayoral executive orders and allowed by action by executive order by the governor of the state of california, my former colleague, gavin newsom, for all small businesses under $25 million in gross receipts for the full duration of the

california eviction moratorium. it creates tiered repayment, for 25 or less employees, 24 months, and 11 and 25 employees, a year and a half. businesses from 26 to 50 employees, 12 months to repay. and in the smallest tier, most small businesses operating in san francisco, you would have the right to terminate your lease despite the contract. and as with the mayor's declarations, we also acknowledge that small property owners are hurting as well. so if you are a landlord who owns less than 25,000 square feet totally in san francisco, you can apply for hardship waiver from these requirements. and as with our covid-19

response, san francisco has incurred the earliest pains and have reached some of the earliest gains, albe it we have delayed the expansion of our reopening tomorrow. we are proceeding with our recovery but if we really want to fully recover, we are all going to have to share the pain between small businesses and landlords and come up with creative solutions to this problem. that's the full -- that's really the only path forward to a full recovery. and this legislation gives options. it gives leverage to small businesses. it brings people to a table to negotiate and it's really about encouraging that relationship between property owners and their tenants. exactly in the same way that we have done on the residential side. and if you don't like the 24-month repayment period, you

can negotiate something else that may be shorter or longer and we really encourage folks to reach that alternative agreement and my hope is this legislation will provide the space for those discussions and negotiations and agreements to be realized, and if you are a landlord, i encourage you to do everything in your power to help your tenant survive. after all, given our retail controls in san francisco you may not have another tenant in the future, and failure to do so will probably be less productive than working something out now. and i really want to, in addition to thanking my co-sponsors, thank a number of attorneys who have been representing small businesses under extreme pressure, dean ito taylor, allen lowe, and in my

office, my staff, lee hefner, and with that, supervisor preston, are there any comments that you might like to add or subtract? >> nothing to subtract. let me just add to thank you, chair peskin, for your leadership on this issue, and also for i think threading the needle in a way that's smart, that's going to force some property owners to the table. i do think that there is in a sense the way it is right now and i think we all came together and appreciate the mayor's leadership around the moratorium, and those have been, the ones done by executive order have been short-term, and by their nature that makes some sense and i think this is the right process where we are

looking at something that's going to be around longer, provide longer term protection, that it goes through the body, allows folks to weigh in in a way that they can't necessarily do so with the same public process on executive orders. but i also think that to me this legislation is very much about fairness. we have a situation right now where there are -- there are commercial property owners right now around the city who are doing what they should do, who recognize small businesses are hurting, who are coming to the take, taking less than the full rent, who are working out payment plans, who are waiving some rent, being creative in those solution. and i applaud the folks doing that. and then we have some landlords who are not doing that with their business, who are insisting that despite the suffering that their business tenants are going through, that residents across the city are

going through, they are adamant 100% of the rent throughout a global pandemic, where small businesses have had little to no revenue. and i think that's an unreasonable position. and i think that one of the real impacts of this legislation should it move through and be passed by the full board is to force those landlords who have i think unreasonably dug their heels in to just begin acting like some of the more reasonable commercial landlords in this city and there's no reason why the unreasonable folks should be drawing blood, so to speak, and getting every penny of rent from people who can't afford it while other landlords are acting more reasonably, are giving folks a bit of a break and working out as something that works for everyone. so, i think that's the biggest impact of this legislation. yes, this will stop evictions.

yes, this will force some folks to work out payment plans. what it will really do, it will change the dynamic that exists right now, and chair peskin, you mentioned japantown in my district, the japan center mall has so many businesses and a commercial property owner that has not been willing to negotiate with the tenants, and there's a lot of detail in this legislation but to me the biggest impact is landlords like that are going to have to come to the table. the only thing that will make sense for them to come to the table if this legislation gets through. i appreciate your leadership and your staff and lee hefner in particular for all the work getting this right and proud to be a co-sponsor of it. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. and supervisor safai, i am wait i think for some late breaking amendments, so after we go to

supervisor safai we will go to public comment and if i have the amendments i will introduce them. in either event, whether i have them timely during this meeting or not, we will continue the meeting to november 9th. supervisor vice chair safai. >> thank you, mr. chair. just want to say this is an obvious statement but i think it needs to be reiterated. i think some people want to live in a different reality. these are extraordinary times. these are absolutely extraordinary times. and because of that you can't show me one business in this city that doesn't want to remain in business. you can't show me one person that gets up every day thinking to themselves i don't want to pay my rent, i don't want to conduct my business. it's the opposite. they live with the anxiety of debt. i have a barber in my district

and he said i'm thinking about just closing up shop. the weight of the debt on my shoulders feels like too much. i have too much pride. i'm not the kind of person that wants to be in debt for the rest of my life. and that story plays itself out over and over and over again. and all we are trying to do, and i would like to be added as a co-sponsor to this legislation. i thought i had conveyed that to you sooner, apologize for not getting it sooner definitely want to be a co-sponsor. we are trying to ensure that people's livelihoods can remain, that people can continue to have a place to go to work, and that our communities are not completely devastated. and that's what we are facing. we are facing the future of so many of these businesses, people that have put their entire lifesavings on the line and they have this massive burden of debt

hanging over them, and then not to mention the threat of eviction. not quite sure what some of the landlords are thinking, i think if they were to evict and massive evictions in commercial spaces they wouldn't then be able to turn around and rent these spaces, so i'm not quite sure what that's about. allow there to be more period of time, for people to pay off their debt, to put a pause on the idea of evicting people during this crisis and these extraordinary times and this legislation meets that standard of measure and allows us to really get a balance back and hopefully we'll be able to continue to protect some of these communities and businesses. that doesn't mean the landlords will not be without collecting their rent because i know people will still be obligated to do that, and as supervisor preston said and you said, supervisor

peskin, they will work out payment plans and a way to pay off their debt. the reasonable thing to do here is sit down and negotiate, and that's what this legislation does. proud to be a co-sponsor. >> thank you so much for your co-sponsorship. madam clerk, open this up for public comment. >> james is checking to see if there are any callers in queue. if you have not done so, star 3 to be added to the queue. james, first caller, please. >> yes, my name is dean erickson, i'm an owner after small family owned business, fit neighborhood fit, also a member of the san francisco independent business coalition and also a

tenant and a landlord, so i understand both sides of the fence, if you will. i'm calling today to voice my support for commercial lease legislation allowing alignment of the commercial eviction mother -- moratorium. it's absolutely that the rent and threat of landlord eviction is mitigated like many. like many, i have, as a landlord refusing to discuss our lease situation and putting a plan in place. i have requested a number of meetings, offered proposed solutions, expressed interest in long-term commitment, only to be ignored and my business is held hostage by my landlord. san francisco leadership needs to step in to set guidelines and reestablish meant the vacancy tax to support the small business community.

crush small business, provide landlords all the leverage and negotiations and set the city's economy up to fail as small business owners have to walk away from their leases. this again is the no brainer decision on our shoulders. one that must be acted on for the well-being of the san francisco economy. >> speaker's time has expired. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. looks like we have 16 listeners and nine in queue. >> good afternoon. stefy, a resident of san francisco, grew up in the east bay, city is a special place for my family and me. come here to eat and shop in the small businesses around japantown and the city. we don't have any family here but small businesses made us feel like home. my parents visit me and often

times shop at small businesses. 44% of the activity, and one of the biggest employers. small businesses have made the city what it is today. drive people like my family to visit. communities that i care about, japantown. and built on dreams and livelihoods across the city and nation. asking for your full support in its entirety and full support from the board supervisors next tuesday. we need it to pass to give the small businesses a fighting chance and a chance to be the vibrant, beautiful, diverse and unique home to so many. thank you to the supervisors on this call and to the future supervisors who support this. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> my name is evan, my wife and i own a small fitness studio on market street and i'm calling in

support of this ordinance. i think it's instrumental in keeping small businesses afloat. a few things i would say, i think it's good to align with the state. so much uncertainty with small business and doing it with the state, small businesses and landlords, more certainty of things. the only other suggestion, especially for the smaller tenants less than ten people, longer than 24 months, should have a square footage component. ten people in the 800 square foot face versus the ten people in the 8,000 square foot warehouse. another component to look at different rents based off of square footage. and i think a lot of us will owe $200,000, and it's $10,000 a month in addition to rebuilding the business. in full support and i hope you guys are too.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. notified when your line has been unmuted, you may pegin your comments. -- begin your comments. >> hillarie, japantown for justice, coalition for the young leaders working locally to promote economic sovereignty. asking for your full support of this ordinance in its entirety. as a fourth generation japanese american, my ties to the japanese culture and community directly correlates to san francisco japantown. if this ordinance doesn't pass, not only will so many small businesses go under in japantown but decimate the community we have worked so hard to preserve and honor. these businesses are the heart and soul of japantown. without them, japantown will cease to exist and future generations will never know and experience the magic of a cultural district such as ours.

please give our small businesses a fighting chance to make et through this pandemic. support this ordinance in entirety and urge you and your co-workers do so as well next week once it passed. >> eight in queue. next speaker, please. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes, you may begin your comments. >> ok. great. thank you. hi, my name is nia, calling from berkeley, california but a graduate student at the university at san francisco state university. i'm calling asking for your full support of the commercial eviction moratorium ordinance today and the board of supervisors next week. i echo hillarie's sentiments, i'm a fifth generation japanese american and come to san francisco to connect with my roots by going to japantown and knowing the communities of color

have consistently been displaced across san francisco. it is important we continue to support the small businesses that continue to hold on to that cultural legacy, continue being community spaces for current and future generations. the covid pandemic has devastated small businesses, residents, tenants, not only in san francisco but the nation. and i believe it's in your power to stop that by resisting our communities to be harmed by the exorbitant rental crisis. i hope you will continue to save our small businesses and save what makes san francisco great. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. you'll be notified your line has been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is paul wormer, and i guess it's a relief to be talking on something other than the all electric new

construction ordinance. thank you, supervisor peskin, for sponsoring this and supervisors preston and safai for co-sponsoring it. i've been involved in both the fillmore commercial district and japantown as a customer of small businesses. and they are vital and interesting. and it is essential that they be preserved. this ordinance is absolutely, one, a very important part to do that, so, thank you for introducing it. i urge its passage and that's it. thanks. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. two minutes. >> hi, my name is jerry chen, a

resident in district one, a board member of the japanesetown task force and community member. small businesses are crucial to the vitality of our neighborhood. and so i, you know, i thank the supervisors for creating this legislation, and i urge its full support, both here and at the board of supervisors meeting. japantown as a whole and many businesses have weathered the american incarceration during world war ii as well as redevelopment, but in all these crises took a toll and now our community is once again vulnerable and at risk of the -- of covid-19 and the pending weight of evictions. so i know there are many of our businesses, including our legacy businesses, that really need this support or else they are at risk of closing, and so i thank for writing this and i urge to support it all the way through. thank you. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. four left in queue. >> hi, malcolm young, and i want to urge the land use committee and the board itself to support this legislation with amendments that the committee i'm sure will consider and approve. you know, frankly this legislation is a lifeline, lifelines are critical in the era of covid. all the speakers on the floor have mentioned how small businesses are failing. at the same time, small businesses make up the life blood in many ways, the culture of our community, and that's certainly true of chinatown. so, i want to urge the committee to approve this and the full board to approve it as well. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please.

>> hi, paul, executive director of the japanese cultural and community center of northern california. i live in san francisco for 60 years. small businesses are the heart and soul of this city. if this ordinance doesn't pass and the moratorium ends the end of november, there are going to be hundreds, thousands of businesses go out past the holidays. you know, it's not just going to affect small businesses, when they start to close down, they are going to blighten neighborhoods. impact is beyond just businesses, you know, they make up the economy of san francisco. this is crazy that, you know, we haven't already extended it and the governor allowing for this. you know, hopefully when we take over the white house and the

senate and the stimulus package can be passed, you know, there will be further support to support the economy of this nation. i mean, it's the only way it's going to happen. i understand landlords are hurting, but you know, it's just doesn't equate to some of the landlords who own several properties, multi-millions of dollars to a mom and pop business that's all they have. and that's all they have had for decades. and they are going to put them out of business by this, you know, deferred rent that you are going to have to owe in 4, 5 months, and it's just going to balloon payment their rent. it will put them out of business. this ordinance has to pass and more government intervention. the only way this situation is going to be solved because this covid pandemic has no end in sight. so we don't know how long this is going to go and how far it's going to continue to impact our economy and our small

businesses. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is jean erickson, i'm a small business owner, i own fitness studios, and i'm just calling because i'm hoping for the full support of the commercial moratorium ordinance. as a small business community, as a small business owner that has put everything into my businesses, with you just really need help to make it through this pandemic. you know, i'm a landlord and i'm also a renter, so i can see both sides of it very clearly. but dealing with a landlord who will not even respond to my email, she won't take a call, she won't meet us to talk about it. and we are just sitting here with months and months of rent

piling up. you know, i've done my best to pay what i can right now with my business only open at 10% capacity. just recently being able to open at 25% capacity. but i'll tell you, it's really daunting to think of having to pay all this back rent so quickly to her when we haven't been able to be open and we have lost almost all of our business during this pandemic. so, i'm going to urge that we make the ordinance longer than 24 months. i think it's just a really heavyweight to be putting on these small business owners to have to pay the heavy, large sums of rent back so quickly. so when we are talking about -- we are talking about thousands and thousands of dollars that you are asking us to pay back in a relatively short amount of time. there needs to be help so we'll stay here and we want to keep fighting to be here.

otherwise, it's just a lot of weight on the small business operator's shoulders. so, thank you so much for helping us out and thank you so much for starting this dialogue and trying to help small businesses actually talk to their landlords, and create a more positive out come. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> chris chen, i'm a small business owner in the japan center mall, owner of a cafe, and i want to thank you for sponsoring the ordinance. ordinance will greatly help my small business. we have been highly impacted by the pandemic. we were closed for a few months and extremely slow climb back. revenues are down by more than 60% and the landlord is not negotiating with us. we have tried over and over again, but we have not heard back. and this ordinance will greatly help us with a reasonable repayment plan.

thank you again for sponsoring the ordinance. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> hello, matt, a stakeholder in san francisco's japantown. call in support of the ordinance. it's full of small businesses and the businesses are what make japantown special. without the business, there would not be a japantown, and i hope you would support this for they have a chance to pay back past due rent. it's not their fault they did not have the fund to raise rent, and continue to have small businesses for future generations to enjoy. thank you, i hope you will support this. >> next speaker. >> hi, my name is tracy sylvester, owner of e.h.s.

pilates, located in the mission on valencia street. as a board member of the mission merchants association, delegate of the district of merchants and a member of another association s advocating for small businesses for over ten years. it's important we do all we can for small businesses, the heart of wonderful city of san francisco. alignment for the eviction moratorium by state order. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. begin your comments. >> hi. hi, supervisors, i'm a resident of district one and a fourth generation japanese american. i'm calling to express my full support for this commercial eviction protections ordinance.

like many other minority groups in s.f., in the japanese american community we have a history with eviction in san francisco. essentially evicted from s.f. by the u.s. government in world war ii and then in the 1960s due to redevelopment. every time we have been kicked out, we have come back to our japantown and even have some small businesses here that are over 100 years old. here again in 2020 we are at risk of getting evicted and this is devastating. japantown has already lost i think at least seven small businesses since shelter-in-place began and i've been talking to some of of the small businesses here, they are telling me that they are getting charged interest for being late on their payments, some of them

$50 a day. yeah, and these small businesses are a huge part of our community. so i really urge you to help us save them, and thank you so much for your work on this ordinance. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello i am a resident of the outer sunset and i work at a community-based non-profit in japantown. i'm calling today to express my support for a commercial moratorium extension and ordinance to enforce it, and i do want to extend my appreciation to supervisors peskin, preston and safai as well for their support and for having the foresight to place policy on the table that will protect our small businesses in our communities going forward.

i am, like many of my colleagues on this call, very concerned about the future of the japantown community and other communities throughout the city. small neighborhoods with their local businesses are all at risk with the pandemic and without protections in place, you know, without pathways for businesses to be paid back rent, in exorbitant amounts, they will not be able to survive and as others have pointed out on this call, the lifeblood of the communities in this city would not exist without these protections. so, i do want to urge the rest of the board of supervisors to support this ordinance going forward and i am hoping for the city's recovery in the future. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. mr. chair, james indicated that was our last caller.

>> thank you, madam clerk and colleagues. i will now close public comment and let me just start by thanking all the members of the public for their public comment this afternoon and as i indicated earlier i do have quite a number of amendments to make to this file which we will continue and those amendments reflect the ongoing evolution of this piece of public policy and you will recall that we actually introduced this legislation before the governor extended his original order that was order number n80-20, which increased our window to pass this kind of legislation as a local government as well as prior to the mayor's most recent 28 supplemental declaration issued at the end of september.

the amendments which i'm about to describe have been circulated to my colleagues and will be included in the public file where anybody can examine them and comment on them again at our hearing on november 9th before this same committee. so, going down the list of those amendments on pages 1-2, updating the findings to reflect the updated governor's executive order and the local supplemental declaration which i just mentioned which extends the protections through the end of march 2021 and november of 2020, respectively. page three, inserting a new finding that the small businesses for the ability or inability to pay back losses for the covid-19 pandemic.

page three, line 22, and page five, line six, inserting a series of new definitions for covered commercial tenants, means businesses with less than $25 million in annual gross receipts calculated on 2019 numbers and what that means is that these are businesses that experienced financial impact related to covid-19 forebearance period, moratorium period, and the four tiers of commercial tenants i described earlier in the meeting. page five, line eight, the protections that align with each tier for businesses less than $25 million of annual gross receipts that have suffered financial impacts, they will not be able to pay rent and the landlord will not be able to get

possession during the moratorium period. tier one businesses, 24 months from the period we discussed earlier, tier 2, 18 months, tier 3, 12 months. and page six, small businesses and landlords may arrive at alternative arrangements, i spoke to earlier. subsection c on page six allows tier one businesses only to terminate the leases during the moratorium period without any liability of rent payments or penalties that comes following the termination, and subsection d, hardship for landlords that own 25,000 square feet of area, and a waiver to landlords who can demonstrate hardships. subsection e on page seven

prohibits late fees or interest from accruing on payments missed due to financial impacts resulting from the pandemic and i may next week delete one other subsection, subsection i on page eight, but am not going to do that today, so those are the amendments that i am offering and are there any comments from vice chair safai, co-sponsor or member preston, co-sponsor? >> all sound good to me. >> they sound good to me. i did have a question and i don't know if it's a clarification of the existing state of the ordinance or would require potentially additional amendment. if you want to move forward and adopt those amendments before i raise the question -- it doesn't pertain to these particular

amendments. >> ok. it does not pertain to the amendments, madam clerk on the motion i just made to move the aforementioned amendments, a roll call please. [roll call vote taken] >> three ayes. >> supervisor preston. >> thank you, chair peskin. here, and maybe this is for deputies to the -- one thing i'm trying to understand and make sure is that i think there are some legal questions around where rent is owed under leases. there are some disputes and unsettled questions of law, frankly, as to what extent rent is owed under certain

circumstances for a business. so, there's quite a bit of case law, some of which i've looked through, around the commercial frustration of purpose doctrine in which when a government order shuts your business down to 0 because of an unanticipated situation. under what circumstances you may have the right already without the ordinance to either terminate the lease, not pay rent. what i want to make sure, and i want to make sure my understanding is correct of this. >> i'm not a lawyer and don't know this legal theory, like a force mejure concept? >> yes, and different concepts, impossibility -- various defenses, to unanticipated situations that shut down the

business and that is one typical contract provision. i think what's important, these are, for the folks who represent the small businesses negotiating with the landlords, the question is to what extent do these doctrines apply, what extent in a situation might the tenant not be on the hook for rent. and my purpose for bringing it up, make sure nothing in this ordinance could be read to require a payment, let's say after the moratorium period when we have language about penalties or the obligations to pay, that we are not expanding in any way a landlord's right to collect rent. so i don't know, from the deputy city attorney, maybe as is, we are not expanding those rights. or waiving those defenses or do

we need a provision that says nothing here is intended to -- to create an obligation to pay rent that may not be as common law, or statute, do we need a provision to make it clear or is it already clear? >> madam deputy city attorney pearson. >> hello, everyone. you raised equitable defenses available to tenants who may have an argument that rent is not due under theory of probability, they were not able to do what was in the contract during the term. and i have to be honest, i've read these amendments only in realtime, i had not seen them before they were distributed. i think the suggestion that you are making might be a good one, to just add language to clarify

that nothing here is intended to foreclose the availability of the defenses and we can look at that this week, this item will be continued. >> thank you, deputy city attorney pearson. and thank you for raising those really fascinating questions that i don't really understand but i think i do. >> yes, thank you. and if we need something next week -- i think as, in my quick read of the amendments on, you know, just like i was looking at page, what is it, page six, the new c -- talks about for example, a tenant opts to terminate their lease early, you know, it talks about responsibility for unpaid rent, right? and again, i -- i'm confident we are all on the same page from a policy perspective that it would be the opposite of the intent of this ordinance to in any way

create obligations for rent that's not otherwise owed, and it would defer to the city of attorney and you chair peskin as to whether something is needed to clear that up or not. >> and that is certainly not my intent and really appreciate your calling that out and as deputy city attorney said we have a week to investigate that so relative to the item that has been amended, i would like to make a motion to continue this one week to our meeting of november 9th. on that motion, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> motion to continue as amended to next week's meeting. [roll call vote taken] >> you have three ayes. >> and supervisor safai,

appreciate your co-sponsorship and supervisor peskin on the leadership side and for all the folks pushing this at the local level. >> item 2, ordinance amending the planning code to designate the history of medicine in california frescoes and toland hall, 533 parnassus avenue as a landmark, and appropriate findings. members of the public who wish to provide public item, call the number on the screen, 415-655-0001, and meeting i.d. is 1466007437. press pound and pound again. if you have not done already, star 3 to sign up for speak. a prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. dam clerk and colleagues, i want to thank you, i think it was just about three months ago last day of july we

passed a measure asking the historic preservation commission and the planning department to investigate this incredible set of murals by bernard barok in toland hall on the u.c.s.f. parnassus campus as a potential landmark. i want to thank the planning department as was the historic preservation commission that ultimately did the research, presented the case report, and recommended this unanimously to the board of supervisors and i would like to start by turning it over to falia lavalee, from the planning department, and then to the university of california vice chancellor brian newman, and i think strides are being made to preserve the work

of this incredible muralist whose frescoes are at coit tower, be learned, and the greatest fresco muralist, diego rivera. so with that. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. just one moment while i share my screen. >> can you correct me as to how i pronounce your last name, please? >> lavallee. >> my bad. >> it's all right, thank you. are you seeing an image on your -- >> yes, we are. >> ok, great. >> and it's an incredible image.

>> yes, it is. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. planning department staff. before you is an ordinance recommending landmark designation of a history of medicine in california frescoes. created by artist bernard zackheim and his assistants from 1936 to 1938. artwork is composed of eight panels, and two more panels, on toland hall, university of california parnassus heights campus. frescoes depict california medical history with images of doctors, lab scientists and other medical professional, and of suffering and recovered patients. as supervisor peskin mentioned on june 23rd he introduced a resolution to initiate landmark

designation for the history of medicine in california frescoes. land use committee and the full board of supervisors voted unanimously to recommend and approve the resolution, effective july 31, 2020, with the mayor's signature. the proposed landmark designation was heard by the historic preservation commission on august 19, 2020. voted unanimously to recommend approval of landmark designation. it's significant with the association of the history of the work project administration federal art project as a work that displays higher values and characteristics of new dealer ra mural artwork and the work of bernard zackheim. 1936 to 1938, and at the time of the historic preservation commission hearing we had three

emails and one letter in support of the designation from the public. separate from the designation, the preservation commission made a recommendation that was included in the resolution that was forwarded to the board that the history of medicine in california frescoes be kept together and retained on the ucsf parnassus heights campus in a manner accessible for the public to view. thank you, that completes my presentation, but i'm here if you have any questions. >> are there any questions from committee members? seeing none. vice chancellor newman. or miss alden. >> vice chancellor brian newman is here, i think he's just getting off his mute.

thank you. >> to the chair, let brian know his mike is unmuted, so he can speak, you can hear him. >> mr. vice chancellor. >> can you hear me now? >> yes, we can. >> i'm sorry, i -- i think i had my default on the wrong set of speakers, apologize. >> don't worry, it's the time of covid, brian. >> can you see me as well? >> yes, sir. >> okay. well, chair peskin, members of the supervisor, apologize for that and i thank you for having me back here.

i participated in july as well as the historic preservation commission. ucsf remains neutral on the actual ordinance but i want to give you an update on what has transpired since that time when we spoke in july to see if you have any questions about the actions we are taking relative to the zackheim murals. at that time i mentioned that we had a request for proposals out on the street soliciting bids from qualified teams to conserve, remove, transport and store the murals so we could proceed with the new research and academic building on the campus, on the ucsf campus, and that r.f.p. was successful, two highly qualified teams present bids, a thorough process of

reviewing qualifications as well as the bids themselves and we selected the conservation services g.c., and group as architect of record to proceed with this work for the university of california san francisco. so we have awarded the work to them. as you know, they are currently engaged in relocating the diego rivera murals, to sfmoma, they will not begin the engineering work on january, but they will be on campus the beginning of january at that do the works, although they will probably not be located to the end of summer. end of the contract in october of 2021. so we were moving forward with that work, but just to be safe,

as i mentioned earlier, we also engaged with an outside ven tore, cy art to do high quality digital recordings of the murals themselves, and that is completed. expanded contracts to do similar works on the other murals at ucsf, so we have a full record of the zackheim work at ucsf. the next step, once the work is underway, to work with all the stakeholders, as well as the broader ucsf on the future display of the murals themselves. we have been collecting ideas and suggestions from all kinds of stakeholders and over the next several months, we will answer the process where the

murals will go. but our intention is not to leave them in storage forever. we plan on engaging anyone who has an interest in this to determine where the best location, whether it be ucsf campus or at a museum setting where the works of art can be preserved and interpreted formally for the public. i'll leave it there and see if you have any questions. overall, we are excited about the progress relative to the future of the murals and we are neutral on the specific ordinance, we understand the passion the community and all of you have, and thank the staff and the preservation commission for the work of the preparation of the ordinance before you today. so, with that -- >> thank you, vice chancellor

newman, all rowing in the same direction at least as this aspect from committee members. >> i'll say quickly, mr. chair, if that's ok. >> yes, of course. >> i'm, i would like to be a co-sponsor, i thought i was, again, i thought i was already. this is a very important thing. this is a part of our history. i think there was some miscommunication, we have talked about that in the past and glad you are clarifying it today. a message that you were going to archive this via video. you said you clarified that. that to me would not be appropriate based on the history of the mural and the ability to preserve historic artifacts and pieces of art. i'm glad to hear that ucsf is

committed now to preserving this and we have the ability through endowment, and through benefactors to support this process, i'm glad that ucsf has committed to this. it's too important piece of would, to lose. >> thank you. member preston, any words? >> no. >> all right. open this up to public comment. >> thank you, mr. chair. james from d.t. helping out with public comment callers. james, if you could let us know there are callers, and go ahead and place the first caller on the line. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is willy from san francisco heritage. i want to express heritage's strong support for landmark designation of the history of medicine in california. ucsf had as you've heard now

selected a firm to remove it from toland hall and into storage. they have no plans to renew it to public view. i understand good intentions but no plan announced. this is a publicly funded artwork tied to the site in which it was created. we hope the specificity of this ordinance which recognizes how the arrangement and design of the fresco cycle is inspired by and tied to the parnassus campus. so i hope we are one of the stakeholders that vice chancellor will work with and on view at ucsf for the public too see. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon again, supervisors. my name is paul wormer. one of the marvelous things about san francisco are the incredible murals that are found in places throughout the city. high schools, hospitals, old post office buildings. and they really are a tremendous education for people. they tell stories that are easily accessible. they give slices of life. there is wit, humor, social commentary critique, criticism in there. these are important parts of our history. so i want to thank you for recognizing this with this legislation. their importance is definitely

related to their location. and because of that i just want to reiterate at mr. labonte's request, that these be publicly available at the parnassus site in a way that represents how they were originally used, if, yeah, how they were originally used, let's leave it there. and with that, i will say thank you for your consideration and thank you for introducing this legislation. >> thank you for your comments. confirming whether we have any further speakers. and that was our last caller. mr. chair. >> thank you, madam clerk. motion to send it to the full board with recommendation on that motion. a roll call, please.

>> motion as stated. [roll call vote taken] >> next item, please. >> 3, ordinance amending the building code to require new construction to utilize only electric power, all electric requirement, adopting findings of local conditions and confirming appropriate findings. public wishing to provide comment on item 3, call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. is 1466007437, then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. mr. chair. >> thank you, madam clerk. as you recall, colleagues, we

duplicated this file and sent one version to the full board to be heard tomorrow and another version in committee as supervisor safai indicated he had some potential amendments, and with that, supervisor safai, the floor is yours. >> so, everyone should have received my amendments, about five pages long, i'm just kidding. but just wanted to see the chair's face. no, actually, there are two things i spoke about last week, one was the issue with regard to faults and how the faults play into the process of allowing a project that might be of a certain size to go from dual fuel to completely all electric and what that process is, and extensive process of conversations through the building department with potential builders and others.

we are going to continue that conversation, it's going to require more in-depth work at the building department. the second issue, the one more pressing and outstanding but in terms of scale, very minimal but in terms of importance to those involved in and looking at it from a city planning perspective, in my mind, very important. and i think what we are trying to do with this legislation is to balance the extreme desire to achieve our environmental goals. we are an environmental crisis, there is a tremendous urgency as i think we have allstated before and state again, this is a phenomenally important piece of legislation and i think we are almost there. but with regard to those in the restaurant industry, a lot -- and feeds in nicely about the conversation not being able to pay rent, not being able to

continue your business, worrying about the anxiety of having a business when the pandemic ends. one of the areas of our economy that's been hit the worst are restaurants. and when you look at this from a city planning perspective, yes, the ordinance allows for restaurants to reemerge and be permitted under their existing uses, dual fuel in existing spaces. it only allows a one-year window for exemption for new construction. and when we are thinking about the mission rocks, thinking about the shipyards and thinking about all the development all over the city, those ever probably some of the places that need more commercial support and often times their desire to put restaurants there and heard overwhelmingly from those in the restaurant industry that this could be a deal killer for them and their ability to locate.

so, we are going to continue the conversation, we don't have any amendments prepared today, we are going to continue the conversation with the restaurant industry and the environmental community but i will say off the bat i think one year exemption based on where we are in the economy, based on where we are in terms of the search for technology that might replace the desire for a flame in the restaurant, i think we need, we are going to need more time than one year. but we have not drafted any amendments yet. we are going to continue the conversation, so i would just ask the chair after public comment if we continue this item to the call of the chair and will continue to work with those affected businesses. we did have some meaningful conversations with the chinese chamber of commerce, with the restaurant industry and we'll continue to have those conversations and hopefully come to some type of compromise. >> thank you, vice chair safai.

and with that, open it up to public comment. >> thank you, mr. chair. james with d.t. checking to see if there are any callers. if there are any callers ready and go ahead and unmute the first caller. >> hi, my name is daniel, thanks again, supervisors for hearing us speak and moving forward with this pressing issue. last week we were excited to get in planned use. i'm here as part of the emergency coalition and a resident in district eight. we are definitely concerned about any further exceptions. we actually, as you well know, did not think the restaurant exception was necessary, only sort of a public interest exemption to handle cases like the cultural heritage cases that are crucially important, as discussed in some of the previous items, so we don't feel

extending the additional year restaurants are provided on top of the technical exception that supervisor peskin and mandelman worked through diligently is necessary. many of the projects that were referenced, like the shipyard have historically poor air quality and burdened with air pollution and burdening them further with more infrastructure, whether it's pipes or the poor indoor air quality, does not serve our equity goals. and we are excited to see supervisor safai taking a very holistic view and tackling other parts of the code to unblock the climate goals, and that's something we would be interested in in support of to see how that

could evolve now. so, that i want to thank everyone for their time. that's it. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public for public comment? >> hello, my name is sarah greenweld, with 350 san francisco, and the climate emergency coalition and a resident of district two. i would echo his concerns about delay. i was extremely pleased a meeting or two ago, the last meeting, at the progress and i could see that you have worked carefully on exemptions needed. we are continuing the conversation while very good-hearted and certainly well-met is not terribly

specific. so, i don't really know how to comment except to say that climate is not going to wait and the health of people who would be exposed to methane and other toxic gasses if you extend natural gas piping into new buildings because they might contain restaurants, you know, that's not, health is not going to wait either. i would like to urge all possible -- [inaudible] on this. >> thank you. one last caller. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon yet again, supervisors. this is paul wormer. and i wanted to follow up on the issue of sidewalk faults, and i want to tie it to the recent action in front of the federal

energy regular latory between pg&e, and raise the issue unlike cities in the central valley where everything has been built with air-conditioning, and so retrofitting gas heat becomes simple. when you look at san francisco, which doesn't have air-conditioning, the electric grid is not up to the capabilities necessarily as a whole. and so this sidewalk fault issue is one small part of a much bigger problem of how do we get the electrical energy to the buildings and how that's paid. and i think that's more than just a building inspection commission, building department question. i think that really does play

into sfpuc and cleanpowersf. it plays into a more integrated strategy to understand this complex problem which has a lot of interactions with different aspects of the way the city runs. and i urge you not to rush through a vault solution without understanding that it may react with, or interact with other solutions we need to move forward with the full electrification of san francisco's infrastructure. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wormer. does that conclude public comment, madam clerk? >> no, one more caller that popped up. >> no worries, that's great. next speaker, please. >> hi there, chris, i live in district three, supervisor peskin's district. i wanted to address this idea of

further extending the exemption for restaurants. i want to be clear, this does not seem to me to be an exemption for restaurants. seems to be more a bail-out for developers. and the neighborhood i live in, there are countless vacancies that could be used for new restaurants so i don't think we have a lack of restaurant space. it seems to me we are trying bail out developers that made bad investments and they should be building all electric commercial spaces going forward. with the sidewalk vault issue, i'm interested in this. the it gives way too much leeway to developers to shirk their requirements, under the climate emergency goals and -- i urge you to consider this idea of closing this loophole. thank you so much. >> thank you, chris. and i think you expressed my sentiments quite well and i do

think that supervisor safai is on to something as it relates to the vaults in our sidewalks and that is actually a piece of public policy that goes even beyond this legislation that has definitely worth getting our hands around. any other members of the public that would like to testify on this item? >> james has confirmed that was the last caller. >> all right. close public comment. and supervisor safai i believe made a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair on that motion, a roll call, please. [roll call vote taken] you have three ayes. >> all right. and that is our last item and we are adjourned.

>> good afternoon, welcome to

election day november 3rd, regular meeting of the board of supervisors. madam clerk, can you call the roll. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. [roll call]

>> clerk: mr. president, all members are present. >> president yee: ok. thank you. please place your right-hand on your heart. would you please join me in the pledge of of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. i would like to acknowledge the staff of sfg. are there any communications?

>> clerk: yes, during the covid-19 health emergency, the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and certainly more acute during this time so we hope members of the public will take advantage of the following opportunities. we have a short version today. we're happy to receive your written communication and sports hands if you are using the u.s. mail address the envelope and san francisco board of supervisors and room 244 city hall, san francisco california, 94102. if you would like to send an e-mail, send it to capital, os at fg gov.org and you can access the livestream by going to www.sfgovtv.org and you with watch the proceedings on your television by utilizing channel 26. just be aware there's a signal delay so when you are ready and can make your public testimony

use your cell phone and turn down your television and you can both listen to the proceedings and make sure public comment from your cell phone and so the telephone number is television and streaming on our website (415)655-0001. when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d. number which is 146 443 9293 and press pound twice and you can join the readings as a listener. listen carefully for the prompt. you have been unmuted and then you are able to just begin speaking to make your comments. all right. just a little bit of information about content on the agenda that is eligible for public comment. there are two public hearings. these are both appeals of sfmta

covid-19. appeal from environmental review and that is item 18-21 and items 22-25 that is proposed mta covid-19 muni rail service adjust commentses and parking changes appeal, another statutory exemption from environmental review and i understand those items are going to be continued to november 10th. public comment will be taken on the continuance. if you are interested in providing general public comment, item 29, and you can talk about the minutes from september 29th, you are able to talk about the subject matter, jurisdiction items, that are on today's board agenda and items 30-33, those are the items without reference to committee calender. the president has asked i deliver a message that during general public comment, each member of the public will have one minute to make that public comment. so, all other items, 1-17, as well as 26-27, are not agenda

content eligible for your testimony today. we have interpreters at today's meeting. we have two joining us, ago us in lie anagnes liand arturo. [voice of interpreter]

[voice of interpreter] [voice of interpreter]

>> clerk: thank you to the interpreters for being here. we're working hard not to leave anyone out of these proceedings so if you are experiencing any connection issues, we do have a live person standing by to

answer telephones in the clerk's office. (415)554-5184. and finally mr. president, through a prior arrangement, we do have an individual who is standing by to make his public comment pursuant to the americans with disabilities agent. >> president yee: thank you, madam clerk. before we get started, a friendly reminder to mute your microphone when you are not speaking to avoid audio feedback. and to the public, as you may or may not know today is election day and you know, if you have not voted yet, please, go ahead and cast your vote and make a difference to us locally and nationally. so, you have until 8:00 p.m. today. another five hours and 45 minutes to get to somewhere to either drop off your ballot or

to vote. so, please, please, vote. it's very important that we all participate. madam clerk, i understand as mentioned that we've received an accommodation request from a member of the public, who wishes to provide public comment. we will open public at that time for that individual. >> clerk: yes, mr. president. i will remind the vigil have one minute, sir. operations, please unmute the caller. >> caller: my name is (inaudible). as the clerk said in its meeting, public comment public access to these meetings is essential and more acute in regular times yet they're limiting our time now to one minute and still refusing to allow the public to attend visually and this is not a public meeting because you do not provide access for those who

do not have cellphones and computers to attend and leave comment at this meeting. i've also pointed out various access issues for people with disabilities and it's been very hard to get this accommodation, extremely difficult. i sent e-mails in october, and i got a response october 30th. and your staff still refuses to tell me when meetings are can september 11th these arkansasca. i hope you can do better. >> clerk: thank you to the caller. >> president yee: ok. thank you, madam clerk, for arranging this accommodation. colleagues, today, we are approving the meeting minutes from the september 29th, 2020 regular board meetings. are there any changes to these

meeting minutes? seeing none, can i have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? >> moved fewer. >> president yee: seconded by -- >> walton. >> president yee: supervisor walton. and then why don't we take the roll, madam clerk. >> clerk: on the minutes as presented -- [roll call vote]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: without objection the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. madam clerk, let's go to our consent agenda. call items 1-6. >> clerk: items 1-6 are on consent. they're considered to be routine if a member objects an item may be removed and considered separately. >> president yee: ok. see nobody on the roster. madam clerk, can you call roll. >> clerk: on items 1-6. [roll call vote]

>> clerk: supervisor ronen, i believe you said aye but it was feint though. aye. [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: ok, without objection the ordinance is passed. let's go to new business. please call the next item. >> clerk: item 7 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require employers and employees covered by quality standards program at the san francisco international airport to provide family health insurance to these employees or to make contributions on the employers on the employees' behalf to an account established under section 14.2 of the

administrative code. >> president yee: ok. madam clerk, call the roll. >> clerk: on item 7 -- [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: the ordinance is passed on first reading. you are on the roster and i'm

sorry, i think you put it on after we started taking roll call. did you have something? >> i did, president yee and thank you so much. i do not have anything to say. i appreciate the unanimous vote. thank you. >> thank you. >> president yee: supervisor peskin, you raised your hand? >> thank you, mr. president. i was going to make a motion to rescind the vote so that supervisor walton could speak but he has already made it clear that he did not wish to do so i i withdraw my end. >> president yee: thank you. madam clerk, item number 8. >> clerk: a resolution to retroactively authorization the department of public-health to submit a one-year application for calender year 2021 to apply for a grant application to the centers for disease control and prevention for integrated hiv surveillance and prevention program for health department.

and the amount of $7 million. >> president yee: ok. madam clerk, please call roll. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: without objection the resolution a adopted unanimously.

let's go to item your 9. >> clerk: ar ordinance to amend the building code, the environment code and mandating new construction to be all electric. >> president yee: supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, president yee. i want to thank the members of the land use committee for forwarding this item to the full board with positive recommendations and for all of their work and thoughtful contributions to the legislation. when this item was before land use, i indicated that today i might be requesting a one-week continuance to elapse further conversations with local 38 with just transition and the pot action opossibility of addressie concerns and local 38 has asked for me to make that motion for continuance and i think it would be something we ought to do so i will move that we continue this one week to november 10th. >> stefani, second. >> president yee: roll call,

please. >> clerk: on the motion to continue item ninth to the tenth. [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: without objection the ordinance is passed on first reading. i'm sorry, the motion to continue the item to november 10th.

passes. item 10. >> clerk: item 10 is an ordinance for third party food delivery services. >> president yee: ok. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, president yee. i would like to start by thanking my co-sponsors, supervisor safai, mandelman, walton and stefani and colleagues, as we all are very, very well aware, so many industries and businesses have been incredibly hard-hit by the pandemic and restaurants are one of those business sectors and while some are recovering throughout door dining and our spared spaces program that was the subject of an article in the chronicle, many are still struggling and up to half of them may never reopen and as we all knew, some were struggling before the coronavirus hit.

there's so many reasons for that my office has been analyzing that for two years and the practices and high commission's charged by third party food delivery apps like uber eats, grub hub and door dash are in part one of the drivers of that and over the course of the pandemic, over the last eight months, as indoor dining first came to a halt, and has reopened, we've seen the incredible expansion of shared spaces from here to district 11 and thank you supervisor safai for actually going out and encouraging people to participate in the shared spaces program. to regain some of that lost capacity and we've also seen a

commensurate, if not vast increase of these third party food delivery apps. as restaurants have had to come to rely on them. in the old days, it was the delivery person but now it's the internet. i want to really start by acknowledging the mayor's executive order in early april which set a 15% cap on commissions that the third party food delivery services could charge to restaurants. all of whom operate on a very, very thin margin. this legislation today builds on that by extending the duration of that cap which is inclusive of all fees charged by food clen deliver re services. including those outside of the core old-time delivery service.

as we've made clear to the third party app providers, if they would like to go to marketing and advertising they should do so but they should not be able to exploit restaurants particularly restaurants that are less sophisticated or new restaurants that are entrance into the very, very difficult market for these additional fees will make it even harder on them. this legislation takes aim at the fundamental business model underlying these -- we all know it, multi-billion venture-cap tarred funded corporations which have been able to emas unbelievable market shares at the same time as i mentioned earlier, while upwards of half our restaurants may never reopen and to that end, this

legislation also proposes to end person practices that have positioned the indoor dining experience indirect competition with the convenience of delivery and at menu items and provides restaurant with the flexibility to cancel their relationships with any of these third party apps with 72 hour notice and prohibits food delivery services from delivering from restaurants with which they do not have a preexisting relationship. much of this has been reported in the media and i do want to acknowledge the apps who have been working with us and individual restaurantstures and the golden gate restaurant association for acknowledging these core principles and agreeing to them, albeit, while they don't like the 15% cap. over the course of the past

couple of months, my staff, lee heppner who i want to acknowledge and salute and i've been in direct communication with these companies, and we've actually compromised on a couple of days. first by allowing this legislation that i wanted to be permanent to expire 60 days following a health order issued by our chief health officer that allows restaurants to return to 100% indoor dining capacity and second by increasing the proposed commission cap from 10% per order which is what i originally started with but as a function of compromise and consistent with the mayor's order to 15%. to modify as a cover established

to add cover establishment should not include any restaurant that meets the definition a formal retail use under section 303.1 of the planning code. i would like to duplicate file and send it back to committee so i'd like to adopt them first and coupe indicate the file and send it back with the intent of keeping watch over this ever evolving quick lie evolving political and business model and make sure that we're prepared to take any additional steps to protect restaurants should we need to do so and in conclusion i'd like to thank the small business for their unanimous support and many organizations who provided early common and in sight like the castro merchants and the sf bar owners alliance

and i already mentioned my starve and the golden gate restaurant and ethan and the dozens of restaurant owners and workers who wrote into our offices and signed petitions in support of this legislation and i would also like to thank deputy city attorney sarah and anne and i mention mid co-sponsors and witmyco-sponsoro move that before taking the first read on this legislation. >> ok, is there a second. >> second. >> please add me as a co-sponsor. supervisor peskin. supervisor safai. >> thank you, i'll be brief but i just want to thank supervisor

peskin for working with us in the beginning of this process i asked him to hold the legislation so we would actually give the delivery at companies the opportunity to sit down with us and do the right thing on their own. we gave them the option during this pandemic, during this health crisis, and during this economic catastrophe to make this decision for themselves and i had multiple meetings with them and working with the industry and laid it out for them and said if you do not do this, we'll do this for you and it's going to make you look as though you did not have the the decency to do this on your own. ultimately, we made the decision to start off at 10% and we compromised with the mayor's office as supervisor peskin said and ultimately landed on 15%.

i will say i appreciate that there's been some negotiations around the idea that this would end 60 days after full indoor dining and i appreciate we're coupe dating the file and i was going to suggest that the lead co-sponsor and say to them that at some point this might be the best practice anyway for this industry. we need to continue to look at that but i want to put that on the record. we did give the decision to make that on their own and we're talking about the survive alf the backbone of our and our economy is based on these small business owners and the idea many of them would be signed up without their knowledge and they would have prices set without their knowledge and they would be put no contract and when they were in contract not get out of contract without their own

undoing. these are important things we're doing so i want that thank lee for his hard work and thank you supervisor peskin for working on this legislation and all the different folks, the golden gate restaurant association and small business perch ants and steed wide folks that are impacted by this so i just want to thank you for your leadership and i'm proud to be a lead co-sponsor on this. >> supervisor mar. >> i just want to thank supervisor peskin and the office for your work on this and we'd like to be added as a co-sponsor. >> supervisor ronen. >> thank you for the work and please add me as a co-sponsor. >> yes, please add me as a co-sponsor. supervisor preston. >> sorry. yeah, same here. please add me as a co-sponsor.

>> ok. >> president yee: all right. so there's a motion to amend as described by supervisor peskin and seconded. can i have a roll on the amendment? >> on the amendment to item 10, supervisor yee. >> clerk: [roll call vote]

>> there are 11 ayes. >> motion to amend passes. please call the roll on the item itself as amended. >> clerk: do you have that motion to send to committee at some point mr. president as amended? >> yeah, i think with all due respect to president. >> president yee: the second motion would be to send the duplicated file to committee, the same committee land use. and i'm sorry, the government office. >> yes. >> it came as public savvy and neighborhood services. >> there's a motion to send it back. >> as amended. >> as amended. and as a second. >> second. >> ok. >> second. i think it was supervisor fewer. >> fewer. >> ok. >> yes, thank you. >> please call the roll.

>> clerk: on the duplicated amended version, to committee, specifically psns. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. the motion to send the amended duplicated file to committee passes. i guess the final vote is to

vote on the amended visional item that was amended. >> ok. >> on item 10 as amended -- [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. the ordinance is passed on first

reading. let's go to item 11-14. >> clerk: items 11-14 are four resolutions that determine liquor license transfers and item 11 transfers a type 48 on sale general public premises liquor license top sue partners doing business as sewall bar. as part of hotel 32-1 at 321 through 323 avenue. item 12 transfers a type 48 on sale general public liquor license so electro salt promotions inc doing business as swig as 553-365 geary street and item 11 transfers a type 21 spirits liquor license and to sue doing business located at 3499 mission street and transfer

a top 20 like or license to luke's local ink doing business at 2190 union street and the board has determined they will serve the public convenience in san francisco and is request they impose conditions on the issuance of items 11-14. >> ok. please call the roll on items. >> clerk: on items 11-14. [roll call vote]

>> there are 11 ayes. >> the resolutions are adopted unanimously. >> madam clerk, let's go to item 15. >> item 15 is a motion 20 appoint sasha bid ner term ending march 1st, 2021 alexander madrid 2022 and daisy mccarther and robin wilson beetle terms ending march 12,023rd to the inhome supportive service authority. >> ok, please call roll. [roll call vote]

there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: without object sex the motion is approved. please call item 16 and 17 together. >> clerk: item 16 and 17 are two motions that approve appointments to the assessment appeals board items 16 appoints two board one elizabeth zarra term ending september 6th, 12021 and dianne robinson and richard lee ending and items 17 it's a motion to appoint jeffrey lee term ending september 4th, 2023 to the assessment appeals board number 3. madam clerk g. ahead ex call the

roll on these items. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: without objection the motions are approved. madam clerk, let's go to committee reports and the item number 26. >> committee reports. items 26 and 27 were considered

by the government audit and oversight committee at a special meeting on thursday october 29th. and were recommended as committee reports and item 26 is a reenactment of an emergency ordinance to temporarily require grocery store and on demand delivery service employers to provide health and scheduling protections to employees during the public heath emergency related to covid-19 and pursuant to the charter this matter requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the board and eight votes for message today. >> can you please call the roll. >> clerk: on items 26 -- [roll call vote]

>> please add me as a co-sponsor. >> we'll add you. >> there are 11 ayes. >> without objection, the ordinance is passed. >> madam clerk, item number 27, please. >> clerk: item 27 is an reenactment of an emergency ordinance reenacted by a previous ordinance number 159-20 to temporarily create a right to employment for certain employees laid off due to the covid-19 pandemic. if their employee seeks to fill the same position previously held by a laid-off worker or as substantially similar position as defined. and pursuant to the charter,

this matter also requires the affirmative vote to do thirds board. >> please call the roll. >> on item 27 -- [roll call vote] >> there are 10 ayes and one no with supervisor stefani in the dissent. >> president yee: the ordinance is passed with a 10-1 vote.

madam clerk, let's go to roll call for introductions. mr. president, you are up first to introduce new business. >> thank you, very much, madam clerk. colleagues, today i'm trying legislation to protect residents of multi-unit housing from the health impacts of second-hand smoke exposure, earlier this year, we had a hearing at the neighborhood services committee on the health impacts of second-hand smoke and you heard the second-hand smoke exposure has skyrocketed in recent years and we have seen huge increases in secondhand vape marijuana exposure. my office received e-mails that

reminded mreminded me they have second-hand smoke and we looked into creating an ordinance that would provide some protection. here are a few facts. smoking is a single most preventable cause of disease and death in the united states and it's responsible for 480,000 and 480,000 deaths per year and second-hand smoke alone is responsible for more than 41,000 deaths per year and causes cancer, lung disease, and harms brains and heart functions and poses a increased health risk to children, seniors and those of existing health issues causing damage to children growing lungs, lung illnesses such as

pneumonia, sudden infant death syndrome and make asthma attacks frequent and severe. unfortunately, home is one of the most commonplaces where we can be exposed to second-hand smoke. residents of multi-unit housing are 3.5 times more likely to be regularly exposed and right now san francisco does so little to help residents avoid being exposed to second-hand smoke in their own homes and oir health code currently prohibits smoking in o common areas and multi unit housing but does not restrict residents have smoking in their own individual units. the problem is smoke easily uses between units and buildings and there's no way to contain it. this legislation would amend the health code to prohibit smoking

inside owner-occupied and rented units of multi-unit housing complexes of 30 or more units requiring that signage be posted in common areas and that residents are notified of the policy by the building even are or manager. the onus would direct the department of public-health to conduct a public information campaign to raise awareness of the policy and share information about available sun sunnation for residents addicted to nicotine. half of san franciscans live in multi-unit housing. residents of multi unit housing are more likely people of color and more likely to be low income and exposure to second-hand smoke impacts our most vulnerable community members.

providing relief out to residents living every day where second-hand smoke in their homes is more important than ever. as we continue to battle of covid-19 pandemic and be prepared for few season. second-hand smoke exacerbates the impact of these respiratory illnesses and during this time, why we have asked our assistance to say home to slow the spread of covid-19 and asked children to go to school remotely in their own most likely their own homes and we know san francisco can escape the smoke in their homes during the day and aren't able to breathe clean air. if i'm a parent with a child who suffers from asthma, or a person recovering from covid-19, right now i can get no help at all and

if any neighbor is smoking every day right next door or downstairs. it's legal for anyone to smoke inside their own unit regardless of the serious and dangerous health consequences. we can't prioritize someone's desire to smoke along to (inaudible) to breathe smoke-free air. this is unacceptable. over the past 10 years, 63 cities and counties in california have adopted 100% smoke-free multi unit housing policies and including daily seed, south san francisco, san mateo, richmond, emeryville and berkeley and i am hopeful such policies will increasingly be the norm in san francisco we have historically taken our

fights against big tobacco and secondhand smoke, we can protect our vulnerability communities from the devastating impacts of second-hand smoke and maybe we'll catch up with our cities that are our neighbors. the rest i submit. >> >> thank you mr. president. supervisor fewer. >> yes, thank you very much, president yee. please add me as a sponsor to your ordinance about second-hand smoke. i'm excited to introduce legislation to create a housing inventory. back in 1979, san francisco adopted our rent ordinance to safeguard tenants from rent increases and since the ordinance allowed the city to regularly grant and has helped protect tenants from losing their homes because of real estate booms and gentrification but one thing the city lacks is an accurate inventory of the

city's existing housing stock in order for the rent board to track landlord-tenant and inspect housing services and restaurants and better administer the rent ordinance we need them to maintain existing rental housing stock and we have seen major changes in our rental housing market and some people unable to pay rent due to covid-19 and many choosing to lead the city to it remotely and this is created more vacancies but we don't know where or how many. we know what asking rents look like but we don't know what actual rents look like for existing tenants. maintaining an accurate housing inventory and tracking vacancy will help monitor compliance with laws against for corporate rental purposes and as well as identifying units that can be used in an emergency for good samaritan purposes and rent reporting could also be relevant

to claims that they have imposed a bad faith rent increase to co horse a tenant to vacate and this will be used for purposes of inspecting and investigating the level of housing services being provided to tenants and rent ordinances and vacancies and analyzing vacancies and monetary compliance and generating resource in survey and provide ago cystance to landlords and tenants as needed by providing a accurate picture of our mental housing stop in san francisco this is not only helping the rent board better do it's job but provide additional benefits to other city departments as well. i would like to thank my early co-sponsor. and all those who were in my office to develop this inventory that is long over don't i hope i can count on you for this

support of the tool on the rent board. thank you, the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor fewer. supervisor haney. >> thank you. i'd love to be added to a co-sponsor to the legislation she just introduced. and i submit. >> ok. thank you supervisor. we'll make sure you're added. supervisor mandelman. >> submit. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you, madam clerk. i would like to be added as a co-sponsor to supervisor fewer's housing inventory legislation and i have three items today. first i'm introducing an additional reenactment of public-health emergency leave to maintain this benefit for a further 60 days as the public-health emergency continues and second, i'll calling for a hearing on the budget and legislative annalist performance audit of the office of economic and workforce

development planning for large scale projects for the economic impacts on surrounding businesses, across the city, we are doing essential work to improve transit and replace and water lines and more and this is disruptive to our small businesses who are imperilled by the pandemic and public-health orders and the bla conducted an audit of how oewd plans to help mitigate construction on small businesses last year and we've never held a public hearing on it and this is long overdue and timely given the new challenges small businesses are facing and i'm calling on a meet and confer obligations and practices with the police officers association including the threshold for determining when meeting confess required. we have heard loud and clear to have an open and transparent dialogue but when we enter into meet and confer, why we do and what is at stake when it

happens. we'll be able to discuss this at thursday's gao meeting when the memorandum of understanding with the poa is considered and i wanted to ensure we have a chance to have a focused discussion on this topic which this year will provide. the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor mar. supervisor peskin. >> i would like to join supervisor ronen in a matter that she is about to announce with regard to a change in the board's practices of getting every meeting but i'll let supervisor ronen speak to that and the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor preston. >> submit. >> thank you. supervisor ronen. >> thank you, supervisor. peskin for that introduction and i'm just going to speak quickly about this because we will be hearing it during committee but

today, supervisor peskin and i are interesting a motion to amend the rules at the board of supervisors and adding a new rule that would require the president of the board to read a statement acknowledging the community of san francisco during at fuel public meetings at this board. november is ma native american heritage month when we must celebrate contributions of the native people, but also engage in recognizing the generations of harm caused to native communities at the hands of our own government institutions. it's undeniable that our own city of san francisco has been complicit in the marginalization of native people from promoting culturally offensive art work, staff, treats and mondayments that represent native americans to the systematic under-funding of american indian organizations. today and everyday the board of supervisors has a responsibility

to honor the first people of san francisco by recognizing their continued and relationship to the land of which we are guests. however, we understand that it is not enough. i look forward to working with the american indian community leaders to push for greater political representation and funding support for american indian arson cultural projects that bring healing and create greater public awareness of the present and historical contributions of native american people to the culture of san francisco and the bay area. i would like to express my deepest appreciation to greg castro of the association. and sha rye a of the american indian cultural district for their work on developing the statement and their tireless advocacy on behalf of the san francisco american indian community. i am going to send this item to committee so we can have a full

hearing and discuss the language that to be read at every meeting and the american indian community is working also with the human rights commission on a similar statement to be read at all hearings and committee and boards and commission bodies in san francisco. this is an effort happening across the city and i look forward to engaging in the discussion here at the board and if i can hand it back to supervisor peskin. >> clerk: supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor ronen. i want to add this is something that a handful of state agencies have already undertaken in my two years and couple months on the coastal commission, we actually adopted this and it's an agency that actually moves up

and down the coast from the north coast all the way down to the border of mexico and in each and every place, the chair of that body would acknowledge the native peoples and thank them for allowing us to be on their lands. so, i really want to thank the native communities that brought this to supervisor ronen and myself and greg castro in particular, and due to deliberation committee, look forward to this being the new way we start each and every meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. >> ok. thank you supervisor peskin. thank you ronen. next up is supervisor safai. >> superivsor safai: submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor.

>> i would like to adjourn today's meeting in horn of a san franciscan who we lost too soon after a fight with aml leukemia and linda squires growy. she spent her life here. she grew up in richmond and attended elementary and presidio middle leading to earn bachelors and masters degrees from san jose state and to teach at hum bolt state. when linda returned to san francisco she started her career at city college where she began as a teacher and retired as dean of the department of health and physical education. linda knew than everyone starts off with the same advantages and that city college could open doors to opportunities that could change lives. she fought hard for her students throughout her career. she was also known for her incredible enthusiasm in the classroom, where she strived to help students with confidence. she was proud of her graduates working in local hospitals and clinics. linda also gave her time and

talent to so many other causes including her work as chair of the board at san francisco's all-female academic high school -- [please stand by] windchill

-- the proposed covid-19 muni bus service and associated stop street and parking changes that was approved by the planning department on august 22, 2020. and this is an appeal of the statutory exemption from the environmental review. item -- that is item 18, and items 20, and 21 are the associated motions that will -- are associated with that particular appeal. and items 22 through 25, comprised of the hearing for an appeal of statutory exemption from environmental review. proposed for the m.t.a.'s muni rail adjustments and the street and parking changes that was approved by the planning department on august 20, 2020.

it's an appeal of statutory exemption from the environmental review. that is the public hearing, item 22, and items 23, 24 and 25 are the motions that are associated with that appeal. >> president yee: okay, any other ones? >> clerk: those are the two appeals. items 18 through 25. >> president yee: okay, thank you. so i understand that there may be -- these items may be continued to a later date. do i have a motion to continue items 18 through 21? >> moved. fewer. >> president yee: moved by supervisor fewer and seconded by -- >> supervisor safai. >> president yee: i will say that we'll continue this through november 10th, 2020. madam clerk, can i have the roll.

>> clerk: mr. president, we were going to take public comment on that continuance first. >> president yee: that's right. you're right, you're right. should i do both of these first? >> clerk: at the same time perhaps. >> president yee: yeah, could i have a motion to continue items 22-25 to the meeting of tuesday november 10, 2020? >> supervisor fewer: moved, fewer. >> president yee: okay. second? >> supervisor mandelman: mandelman. >> president yee: seconded by supervisor mandelman. okay. before we take these motions let's take public comment for the continuance. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the -- on just the continuances? >> clerk: okay, operations, can you please unmute the first caller. and just so that the public knows that we will be -- the president indicated two minutes

for the continuance. operations, any members of the public interested in speaking? >> there is one. >> caller: i'm very concerned about the program which is adding to the traffic congestion. it might be fine in the case of this pandemic, but it should not be permanent. and basically putting it down for the continuance of a few and the interest of the majority (indiscernible). and you're adding to the congestion. thank you. >> clerk: okay, thank you for your comments, sir.

operations, is that the final caller on the continuance? >> madam clerk, that completes the queue. >> clerk: great. thank you. mr. president? you're muted, mr. president. >> president yee: okay, soing no other speakers, and public comment is now closed. motion to continue items 18 through 21 made already and seconded. could we have the roll, please? >> clerk: on the motion to continue items 18 through 25, we're taking both appeals, continuances at the same time [roll call]

there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. then without objection items 18 through 25 will be continued to our meeting november 10, 2020. madam clerk, let's go to public comments. >> clerk: all right. this is the opportunity for the public to give us their public comment. if you're calling in now the number is 1-(415)-655-0001. when prompted enter the webex meeting identitier which is

1464439293 and press pound twice to join the proceedings. and when you're ready to get in line to provide your public comment, press star, 3. and your phone will prompt you and it will sound that you have been unmuted. and just start making your comments. you will have up to one minute today to provide your testimony. operations, can you please unmute the first speaker. >> caller: hello, supervisors, my name is -- >> clerk: hello, caller. >> caller: yes, sorry. my name is lavine felton, and the heart association applauds the co-sponsors for campaign smoke free for san francisco. this is an important strategy to reduce the exposure to secondhand smoke which can have an immediate effect on the cardiovascular system and long term exposure is associated with the 25% to 30% increased risk

for coronary heart disease in adults non-smokers. the evidence is clear is that there's no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke and everyone should be allowed to breathe clean air, particularly in their home. thank you for considering this ordinance. >> clerk: thank you to the caller. sorry about that, didn't mean to step on your toes. okay, operations, please unmute the next caller. >> caller: my name is bob gordon and i'm co-chair of the san francisco tobacco-free coalition and i want to thank norman yee for his leadership and legacy of helping san francisco to become a healthier place for all, protecting san franciscans from toxic secondhand smoke. only some of us who live here in san francisco are luckyive in to have clean air to breathe in our apartments and homes but it shouldn't be a matter of luck. all san franciscans, especially the most vulnerable among us, such as seniors and pthose living with lung disease and

those with compromised immune systems such as h.i.v. and cancer and those at risk of covid-19 and other conditions deserve to dwell in residences from dangerous drifting smoke. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. all right, we have 12 listeners on the line. operations, please unmute the next caller. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. i'm liz williams for americans for non-smokers' rights. and thank you, president yee for having this ordinance. this would be a great way to reduce the exposure for secondhand smoke for those living in apartments and condos. it's helpful for the children and seniors and people with health issues, especially with conditions like asthma. having a smoke-free residence environment is even more important now that covid-19 means that people are spending so much more time at home instead of spending their days in smoke-free schools or

smoke-free residences. and we want all to have a healthy living environment that includes the right to breathe, especially at home. so it's never been a better time to protect the health of our communities, especially for residents who are already facing health disparities that are being exacerbated by drifting secondhand smoke and covid-19. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, caller. operations, please unmute the next caller. >> caller: i'm speaking on the findings for 1846 grove street. i urge you to reject the findings before you today because they are not supported by the preponderance of the everyday. in fact, they're supported by no credible evidence. if the concern was about safety, why were d.b.i. and fire not present for the hearing? were they invited? when they were found not to be present, why was the hearing not continued? the district supervisor shut down the request to call the

departments. the result is that the number of homes that could be built on this vast parcel was reduced from four to two. so you're going to have more expensive homes here surrounded by acreage where you could have had four smaller homes, accessible for middle-class families. how does this improve housing affordability? i urge you to reject the findings, reopen the hearing, invite the departments, read the code analysis, and then make your decision. your constituents care about housing. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is kalan killy and i'm the vice-chair of the tobacco-free coalition. i'm calling to thank president yee for his timely introduction of the smoke-free multi-housing ordinance. in 2011, a vicious fire started

by the dropping of a cigarette ravaged an apartment building in the tenderloin. it caused 250,000 dollars in structural damage, not to mention the displacement of vulnerable residents. the adverse impact of this event was compounded by the utilization of the san francisco fire department resources. the acknowledgement of these finite resources is also very timely as northern california continues to have its fire department resources stretched thin due to the onset of the unprecedented wildfires. i thank you again, president yee, for this most timely ordinance. >> clerk: thank you, sir, for your comments. okay, operations, please unmute the next caller. >> caller: my name is herbert minor. basically the program

essentially is going to add to the congestion with traffic. and while it may be necessary in the pandemic, it certainly should not be permanent. it is really due to poor planning and it's observingally aimed against automobiles which are forms of transportation. now if you're concerned about bringing in automobiles, what you should do is initiate the (indiscernible) that's legitimate. but for heavens sakes, don't limit it to automobile traffic that will add to the congestion (indiscernible) on california streets. please do not (indiscernible) the overall (indiscernible) is going to be a nightmare. m.t.a. celebrates halloween

every day because every day for m.t.a. is (indiscernible). thank you. >> clerk: all right, caller, just for future callers, the m.t.a. appeals have been continued to november 10th. so there cannot be any public comment on the m.t.a. appeal this is afternoon. but i didn't want to interrupt the caller so he could get his comments out there and we could just reaffirm to the members of the public listening. okay, operations, let's please hear from the next caller. >> caller: good afternoon. this is anastasia, i'm a tenant and a member of the san francisco tenants' union. i'm calling to thank supervisor fewer for introducing legislation to create a housing inventory. tracking vacancies and analyzing

rent vacancies to have an accurate picture what we have here in san francisco is what we need. putting it at the rent board would make it accessible, and i am encouraged that so many other supervisors have already signed on as co-sponsors. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> caller: hello, my name is john wondo. and i am a minister in district 8. i'm calling to ask the board of supervisors to please reject the racist police officers' association contract renegotiation and to call a public hearing to provide transparency in the future contract negotiations. this summer tens of thousands of

people hit the streets of san francisco demanding the end of police violence. but nothing has really changed. just this past month afpd hunted down mr. vargas, a man this crisis, and killed him in the streets. despite wide made demands for a transformation for public safety, the contract perpetuates the racist status quo. it gives sfpd two additional years of raises and offers no policy concessions to prevent the officers from killing yet another person. it also adds a clause that gives them benefits earned by city workers that create public safety, like nurses, teachers and other essential workers. across the country, cities are beginning to hold police fraternities accountable. in chicago, there's negotiations with their police fraternity and they're asking for 40 disciplinary reforms and had all negotiations in public.

philadelphia even passed a law prohibiting the contract talks with their police fraternity -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. thank you for your comments. okay, operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> caller: hello. my name is margaret and i live in district 7. i'm calling to demand that the board of supervisors reject the racist police officers' association contract negotiations and call a public hearing to provide transparency into the teacher contract negotiations. this renegotiation is exactly what the p.o.a. wants. they get two additional years of racism and it locks in their accountability through 2023. any new contract requires them to not harm our communities. and why are we asking for nor negotiations after another killing -- a police killing of a

man in crisis less than a month ago. 76% of these forces and acts of violence were against people of color. they still point their guns at people 2.4 times a day and (indiscernible) and less than 30% from 2016. and reject the contract and make all teacher negotiations public. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have about 16 listeners on the line. if you're interested in making public comment press star, 3. welcome, caller. you'll have one minute to make your comments today. operations? >> caller: good afternoon. this is regina eastbox, district 3, and like the previous callers making commentary on the p.o.a. negotiations, they must be public. i participated in all of the

b.o.s. calls over the summer, thousands of people called in. you've got a paltry $25 million reduction while we still have law enforcement officers in schools. we don't have adequate counsel ors. we don't have library services. mental health services. affordable housing. this is ridiculous. there must be public p.o.a. hearings and when i look at comparisons to chicago, chicago -- which is in negotiations right now they have asked for 40 concessions. and where are we, san francisco? supposedly a an avant-garde politically progressive city. this has to stop. these hearings need to be public. we need transparency. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. okay, operations, let's unmute the next caller. welcome, caller. you will have one minute. thank you.

>> caller: can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> caller: it is mr.pelbell. board file 202118. on that i require a city attorney memo from years ago and i think that the conclusion of that is that the industry administrator has the naming authority for spaces within city hall. so perhaps you want to consider amending the item to so indicate because it currently urges that the space be renamed. but perhaps mentioning the city administrator specifically with that authority would help. i don't know. but i support item 30 and the proposed press room renaming. i think that it's an entirely appropriate honor for barbara taylor.

thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> fly ththrough the clerk and president, noted and i will now amend. >> clerk: okay, operations, let's hear from the next caller. we have about 14 listeners in the queue. >> caller: hi, my name is gracie and i live and work in san francisco. i grew up in san francisco. i have been evicted here and i've also been jailed. i am calling to demand that the board of supervisors reject the racist police officer association and to call for a hearing to provide transparency into future contract negotiations. standing up to our city's racist police fraternity and reject the contract and make all future negotiations public. this negotiation is exactly what the p.o.a. wants. they get two additional years of locking in their lack of transparency and accountability

through 2023 and sets them up to negotiate their next contract in a mayoral election year when they'll have more leverage. stand up to the racist p.o.a. the attempted legal action to prohibit the officers from shooting at moving cars which is how sfpd murdered jessica williams. and the use of the restraint which killed eric garner. and this past june they threatened a lawsuit to kneel on the necks of san franciscans. weeks after that the same move killed george floyd. the community should have input. p.o.a. policies are a matter of life and death for black and brown san franciscans. chicago is in the middle of negotiating its police fraternity contract and they're asking for 40 disciplinary concessions. why is san francisco not asking for concessions even after months of protest against police violence and another police killing of a man in crisis less than a month ago. the sfpd have the level of anti-black bias is seen as

extreme. last year black people only made up 5% of the city's population but accounted for 40% of all police searches and 50% of the jail population. in q4 last year, black latin san franciscans made up 45% -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. thank you for your comments, ma'am. okay, we're doing one minute today just for the listeners who might have just come into the queue. i think that there are about 17 of you in the queue. we're doing one minute today. operations, please unmute the next caller. >> caller: hi, i am an educator and a youth worker who lives and works in san francisco. i'm also calling to demand the board of supervisors to reject the racist p.o.a. contract. and for the public to hold hearings on future negotiations. we are aware that police fraternities are dangerous. a study found that violent misconduct with the sheriff officers increased about 40%

after they were allowed to unionize. we have seen that collective bargaining rights protect officers to be discriminatory against people of color. we have seen in san francisco itself how violent against people of color, against people who are experiencing homelessness and against our vulnerable populations that police are able to be. and these renegotiations are only protecting that. it is ridiculous that after months of protests against police violence that this is even a conversation being had. in the future all of these conversations need to be held in public and there need to be comments to give input and to hold officers accountable. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. okay, operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> caller: hi,my name is mimi klaus and i have lived in district 9 for 35 years. i call to demand that the board of supervisors reject the p.o.a. contract and to call a public

hearing to provide transparency and to the future contract negotiations. and we're not getting anything. this is absurd. there must be policy concessions in any new p.o.a. contract. as other callers have said, chicago is in the middle of negotiating its police fraternity krsht and they're asking for 40 disciplinary concessions. i have to ask, why is san francisco asking for no policy concessions, even after months of protests against police violence? and yet another police killing of a man in crisis less than a month ago. i was not happy that the board accepted a police budget with very few changes. please stand up to the mayor now and don't get me going about d.h.r. if there isn't a more corrupt and racist city department, i don't know. and it's absolutely unacceptable that k.h.r. is the department

that has had, you know, in making the decisions about this contract. so stand up, please. >> clerk: okay, thank you for your comments. all right, operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> caller: hello, my name is jasmine, district 9. i'm here to demand that the board reject the p.o.a. contract and to call a public hearing to provide transparency into the future contract negotiations. my dear friend derek gains was 15 years old when he was executed by officer joshua calvillo in south san francisco. and calvillo was then hired to sfpd as soon as he arrived and has used excessive force on multiple occasions and because of the corrupt p.o.a. and s.f., cops like calvillo continue to terrorize the community.

we should not make over $200,000 a year. by not rejecting the contract it's saying that their lives matter more than ours. it's confirm that we know that cops beat and kill us and get raises. and reject this p.o.a. contract and make all future negotiations public. and so the community can have input. and it's a matter of life and death and black and brown san franciscans. >> clerk: thank you, thank you for your comments. all right, operations, let's hear from the incom next caller, please. welcome, caller. >> caller: hi there. i'm a 15-year resident of district 9 and i work in district 10. i'm calling in regard to the p.o.a. contract and the manner in which these negotiations have taken place. the police serve the public and, therefore, are accountable to the public. continuing to negotiate the p.o.a. contracts behind closed doors is inappropriate and a

decision to continue to support this system and structure is an act of racism itself. the p.o.a. contract is the mechanism by which discrimination practices are allowed to be reproduced in our society. (please stand by)

>> this is a severe misallocations resources but it's much worse because the p.o.a. shields officers from accountable when they commit the worse offenses. all future negotiations should be held in public and once again at this time, the board of supervisors must reject this contract. i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you, caller. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please.

>> caller: hi, i am a resident of district 6. previous callers, many of the previously callers i'm calling on and i want to call on the board of supervisors to reject this renegotiated p.o.a. contract for the any kind of change to the racist status quo. it's the mockery of the system the way it's negotiated. not even the chief of police new this contract is being renegotiated. it's all happening behind closed doors as a way to sort of like massage the numbers on the mayor's budget where she can defund the police and hand them tens and millions of dollars and

raises over the next three years and locking in no accountability and if you pass this it sets a precedent of the wave and the board of supervisors will have no input on to any future p.o.a. conflict. >> thank you for your comments, sir. ok, operations, let's hear from the next caller. welcome, caller. >> hello, my name is hassan and (inaudible). first of all, i would like to say that something at the conversation and this vote is incredible underfund because there's a (inaudible) going on. also, i'm calling to demand the board of supervisors to reject the (inaudible) association contract and row negotiations held public during to provide

future contributions and this summer tens of thousands of people hit the streets of san francisco and demanding (inaudible) but nothing changes. nothing has changed and actually the past month, sfpd has hunted down another person of our community and a man in crisis and called him in the street and i'm emotional here. despite the widespread demands for our approach public safety the appeals contract status quo. >> thank you, sir. it's all right, we appreciate your emotion. there's a lot at stake. operations, let's welcome the next caller, please. >> caller: hi, my name is amanda and i live in district 1. like a lot of other people i am calling they reject the p.o.a.

renegotiation and call public hearing to call transparency to future contract negotiations and it seems odd that it's happening today and the election and we want more public transparency through negotiations and it's exactly what the p.o.a. wants and they get two additional raises and transparency and accountability and sets them up to negotiate in the next contract and the mayoral election year when they have more leverage and they have policies and con sexe concessioy p.o.a. contract and they have movement to defund the police and this would mean a great step to doing that. nothing changes unless we make changes that have financial impact and passing the contract is a pass for police stand up to the contract and headache all future negotiations. >> thank you for your comments.

operations, let's unmute the next caller. >> caller: hi, my name is jacks. i live in district 10. and i worked in district 6 and district 3. i'm calling to demand that the board of supervisors, like everyone else before me or like many before me, reject the police officer's association contract renegotiation and call a public hearing to provide transparency into future contract negotiations. a former member of local of 665 and a daughter of three generations of unionized teachers. coming from a union family i do not see police i fraternity as d study have found that collective bargaining rights are being used to protect the ability of officers to discriminate in the dis purchasdisproportionate pol.

i watched the police harass neighbors once a week and it was shameful that the bad officers will be protected and up lifted by this contract. the p.o.a. contract negotiations need to be held publicly and if not held publicly, then not. >> thank you for your comments. operations, let's unmute the next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is alexander post. i'm a resident of district 10. i'm also a member of case, which is a union of california attorneys government attorneys including the drj, parole board, et cetera. the p.o.a. is for years spent the resources you provide them to pervert justice not further it. and we worked so hard to stop the p.o.a.'s half a million dollar campaign to strip the police commission of oversight of use of force. they do not spend is that amount of money on trying to further reform and in fact they fight those reforms in court.

so, i call on you to reject this contract, call a public hearing, no more negotiating our safety behind closed doors. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. we really appreciate all the callers trying to limit their timeframe to one minute. we very much appreciate trying to figure in all of this public comment and be able to conduct our civic duty and vote. all right. so next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. i wanted to call and request that we defund the police and we address the systematic racism in our police department. and towards that end i want to take a careful note to notice how many people are around and on a regular basis contributing to this movement. i'm very thankful for their support. the thing i want to say is this moment is unique.

this police negotiation is unique and while we've heard from our supervisors for years now, that things needed to change and for years the p.o.a. is awful and a chants at our death penality to fuck the p.o.a. when it comes a moment when we have public support and we have people standing there and we need change. you've said it, we've said it, everyone has said it. this is that moment. accepting this contract without change precludes the progress that the politicians to the local people have been crying as desperately necessary. we need to adjust the contract and we need to open this process to community input and quite frankly, this one minute of time isn't sufficient -- >> thank you, sir. understood. thank you. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> caller: hello, my name is

toby. i am in district 8 and yeah, this has to take place in a public discussion. i mean, if we just take a look at chicago, they're in the middle of ro renegotiating their police contract and they're asking for 40 disciplinary concessions and why is san francisco is asking for no concessions even after months of protests. this is crazy. this is exactly what the p.o.a. wants. and yeah, it's got to be held in public so the community can have input and yeah, this has to be held in public. that's all, i yield my time. >> thank you, caller. thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next speaker.

>> caller: dean. you guys have put quite a motley crew together to call in. pretty impressive. they are all thoroughly a bunch of nut sacks. >> all right. so, thank you, caller for your comments. operations, do we have another caller on the line, please? >> caller: this is toby from district 8. there's a mistake. i already had a comment with respect -- >> thank you for your comment, sir. >> ok. operations, is there another caller on the line? >> caller: my name is lawrence and i live and district in district 9. like so many of my fellow san france i demand the board reject the p.o.a. contract renegotiations and call public hearings for transparency into

future contract negotiations. this renegotiation is a sweat heart deal for the p.o.a. they get raises guaranteed at a time that other city workers are being told to tighten their belts due to the pandemic. their lack of transparency and accountability through 2023 and what is distressing is this renegotiation has a parity clause which gives the p.o.a. benefits earned by other city workers but actually providing safety and services that we need. it's pretty straight forward stand up group p.o.a. reject this renegotiated contract and fight the good fight for a safer city when the current contract expires and just be brave. thank you. >> thank you, for your comments. we have 14 listeners. if you are one of the 14, press star 3 and that will get you into the queue. all right, operations, let's hear from the next caller,

please. >> caller: my name is joannie and i live and work in district 6. i'm also calling to demand the board of supervisors project the rates of the police officer association renegotiation and call on public hearing to provide transparency into future contract negotiations. negotiations should be held in public so the community can input a c.o.a. policy on matter of life and death for so many san franciscans and as i recall other cities like chicago, are in the middle of row negotiating contracts and asking for a concession so why progressive city like san francisco not asking for any policy concessions and if you consider yourself a progressive, supervisors, do the progressive thing and listen to your constituents and stand up to the p.o.a. and let us in on the process. it's important we make change and don't keep on living like that, especially during these

times. >> thank you for your comments. so, operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> caller: my name is sean titus and i'm a residen resident of d. especially now we need to extract concessions from the rates of p.o.a. but the bar association found the new m.o.u. that extends the contract is not advance any of the objectives of the collaborative reform processes. for years the p.o. has ha been abusing and confer and instead of doing anything to remedy this, it locks in the existing policies while giving an additional two years of raises to the police. police associations have been found to exacerbate police violence to lock in the status quote for two years after sfpd murdered someone is unthinkable. the other callers mentioned we can look to negotiations in

chicago, for inspiration to see real change is possible and it starts by rejecting this renegotiated contract. following that, the board much hold h.r. accountable in those negotiations and all future negotiations must be held publicly. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's unmute the next caller. welwelcome, caller. >> caller: hi, my name is catalina and i live and work in district 4. i'm calling to demand the board of supervisors reject the racist p.o.a. contract renewal association and call a public hearing to provide transparency into future contract negotiations. this negotiation is exactly what the p.o.a. wants and they get two years of raises and lock in transparency and accountability to the 2023 and sets them up to negotiate the next contract in the mayoral election year when they have more leverage. stand up to the racist p.o.a.

why is san francisco asking for no policy concessions even after months of protest against police violence and yet another police killing of a man in crisis less than a month ago. across countries, cities, police if certain tease are being held accountable and in chicago negotiations with the police, they're asking for 40 disciplinary forms and have all negotiations in public. philadelphia passed a law prohibiting contract talks with their police attorney until the public hearing takes place and community demands incorporate into negotiation. it is your responsibility, supervisors, to prevent sfpd from operating in the shadows. do the right thing. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. let's welcome the next caller, please. >> caller: hi, i'm calling to demand the board of supervisors project the p.o.a. contract negotiation. and call a public hearing to

provide trance transparency into future contract negotiations. ronen, i appreciate your celebrating wins on twitter and i hope you are listening -- >> please address your comment to the board as a whole. address your comments. >> board as a whole, i think that we're all very excite today say bye, whether he is gone or not with the p.o.a. contract is still going to exist black and brown folk will be targeted and support will still be criminalized. i know you mean well but i invite you to think critically and live by what you say and who we should be supporting. and that's marginalized in the press to have the right to live dignified lives. they have a salute of the use of power and to call out that violence is violence and abuse that all employ in the communities. what better time. what a better time now to stand

up to the racist p.o.a. anti bias training for police doesn't work because police (inaudible). >> thank you for your comments. operations, let's unmute the next caller, please. >> caller: hello. >> welcome, caller. >> caller: hi. my name is lawyer and i live in district 8 and i'm also calling to urge the board of supervisors to reject this p.o.a. contract and we should have full public hearings before any kind of renegotiation. it's very important we get meaning. policy concessions like other cities have done. thank you, bye. >> thank you for your comments. operations, let's unmute the next caller, please.

>> caller: before i start, i want to ask that after i'm done that the clerk gives us an update on the queue and continuous updates on that. that's all, thank you. my name is emily and i live in district 9. i'm demand the board reject the racist p.o.a. contract renegotiations and culture future negotiations to be public. this contract negotiation is an act of violence towards black, indigenous and brown lives and the un-- they marched in the streets in the names of black lives matter and when can he called into the previously medicine and told you to cut the budget one discuss was the p.o.a. contract prevented you from certain cuts. you did nothing. any attempt to rubber stamp this contract is complicity with the system of police violence. earlier this month, sfpd, or last month, sfpd shot and killed a man in crisis in the streets. so white supremacists police if

certainty is defending this murder. you want to rubber stamp that and defend them. across the country they're holding police fraternity as count able and have negotiations with their police fraternity they're asking for disciplinary reforms. >> thank you so much for your comments. there are 11 speakers unti in te queue. can you press star 3 if you are interested in providing public comment. operations, next caller, please. >> that completes the queue. >> clerk: ok. all right. well, thank you operations. mr. president. >> president yee: thank you. thank you for the public comments and seeing no other public comment, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, let's go to for adoption of committee reference. >> clerk: items 30-33 were introduced for adoption without reference to committee.

a unanimous vote is required for resolutions today. alternatively any supervisor may require a resolution to go to committee. >> president yee: ok. so let's see. colleagues, would anyone like to officer any items for supervisor mandelman? >> i don't want t sevenner anythinto severanything but i'mr for 30. >> clerk: ok. >> thank you. >> president yee: anybody else want to officer anything. seeing none, eye like to be i'de added as co-sponsor. let's call the roll on items 30-33. >> clerk: on items 30-33 -- [roll call vote]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: out objection the resolutions are adopted and motions approved unanimously. could you read the memoriams. >> clerk: yes, mr. president. today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals. i have, on behalf of supervisor stefani, for the late ms. linda squires growing. >> president yee: ok. colleagues, that brings us to the end of the agenda.

madam clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> clerk: that concludes our business for today. >> president yee: thank you, madam clerk. there are no further business, go ahead and go out there and do your civic engagement. we are adjourned.