>> welcome to the remote hearing first, february, 4, 2021. on february 25, 2020 the mayor declared local emergency and authorized the planning committer for shelter the place. this is our 40th remote hearing. if you are not speaking, mute your microphone. for public participation we are streaming this hearing live at sfgovtv. comments or community goes to speak are available at 415-655-0001 access code (146)503-3971. when we reach the item you are interested in press star and 3 to be added to the queue.

when you hear your line is unmuted begin speaking. each superior is allowed up to three minutes. when your time is reached i will take the next person in the queue to speak. call from a quiet location, speak slowly and mute volume on your television or computer. take roll at this time. >> koppel. >> here. >> vice president moore. >> yes. >> commissioner chan. >> yes. >> commissioner diamond. >> hear. >> commissioner fung. >> here. >> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> commissioner tanner. >> here. >> thank you. first is consideration items for proposed continuance. 1.

2020-003223 c.u.a. at 249 texas street. this is to continue to march 4th, 2021. 2. case 2019-021010 c.u.a. is withdrawn. further under regular calendar item 10 case 2013.1535 at 474 o'farrell street street and 532 jones street conditional use authorization is requesting continuians to march 11, 2021. item 11. 2018-014795 at 1516 folsom street requests continuance to february 18, 2021. i have no other items for continuance. we should open this up for public comment. members of the public this is

your opportunity to speak for any items proposed for continuance. press star 3. one member of the public. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon. this is ella strong, president of the executive board of church of christ scientist. cosponsors of o'farrell street street and request continuance of our item. thank you. >> thank you. >> last call for public comment on items to be continued. no further requests or additional requests for public comment, public comment is closed. the matter is now before you.

>> commissioner imperial. >> move to continue items proposed. 1, 2, 10, 11. >> second. >> thank you on that motion to continue all items. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> that passes 7-0. that puts us on your consent calendar. only one item on consent. that is your consent calendar to be routine by the planning commission by a roll call vote of the commission. no separate discussion unless a member of the commission or public or staff requests. then it shall be removed and

considered at a separate item. 3. 2020-007346 c.u.a. this is 2284-2286 union street. we will take public comment for anyone wishing to pull this off consent. members of the public press star three. no members requesting to speak at this time public comment is closed. your consent calendar is now before you. >> commissioner moore. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion to approve item 3 under consent calendar commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye.

>> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously. that places us on commission matters. 4. consideration of adoption draft minutes january 21, 2021. we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the minutes. no members of the public to speak public comment is closed. minutes are now before you. >> commissioner diamond. >> move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt minutes from january 21, 2021 commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved that motion passes

unanimously 7-0. >> item 5. commission comments and questions. okay. moving right alongying no requests to speak from commissioners. department matters. item 6. directors announcements. >> no announcements today. >> all right. item 7. review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals did not meet and historic preservation commission met yet yesterday. there is a brief report. >> manager of legislative affairs. at the hearing no planning department items. the full board approved the landmark des designation by supervisor haney.

supervisor mandelman introduced review of large residence development and issued four units in rh districts on corner lots and lots within a half-mile of gated transit stations. as the ordinance is not drafted i don't have that one. the large home ordinance requires conditional use authorization on any projects in rh with more than 2500 gross square feet less is increasing more than 50% or up to 2500 square feet. it does provide exception to the 50% rule so long as the project increases density. no resulting units over 2500 square feet less than a third the size of the largest and subject is not historic resource. allows 10% increase for

buildings 2500 square feet or more. members of the berkeley city council announced they are introducing a resolution end to exclusionary zoning laws in addition to sacramento and portland is positive trend in the housing policy on the west coast. that is all today and i am happy to take any questions. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. the regulation or proposed legislation no house over 2500 square feet in the city. that property could add another unit and that is no unit over 2500 square feet? i am confused how that would relieve the limit of the size. >> it only helps with a 1200 square foot home and you want to

increase more than 50%. you are below 25 but below 50%. that is the only exception. >> thank you. >> if there are no additional questions regarding the board of supervisors, historic preservation met yesterday and considered the department 2021 budget and add adopted recommendation for your approval today. they considered two legacy business registries agcr body. second for g and son hardware. the only important thing here is both of these legacy business applicants are in district 10. they considered the preservation alternatives for proposed development project at 1101-23

sutter street. if there are no questions related to the historic preservation we can move on. general public comment. each member of the public may address commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed 15 minutes it may be moved to the end of the agenda. this is your opportunity to speak to general public comment by pressing star 3. you will have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners, this is georgia. i sent you an e-mail yesterday with an attachment. i want to clarify something i wrote in the e-mail about the

quote from the president of the planning commission a year ago january 23rd at a hearing on the budget about housing affordability. his actual line that he said was is there some way we can take a look at it? it was just referred to staff, but that is a year ago. i go back to the attachment i sept to you from the staff in 2009 about march 26, 2009 about how they were going to come back to you with adjustments that never happened. it is unfortunate. there was everything in nowi valley. now we are in a situation similar to where we were back in

2008, 9, 10 as we came out of the economic town turn. we have in an economic downturn now and all of this explosion of these projects taking advantage of this big loophole. i worry about that happening again. i remind you one other thing. back in 2015, the staff did look at a sample of five projects in nowi valley. 40% should have been analyzed and reviewed per the original demos from 2019 not adjusted. that is all i have to say. i hope you read my e-mail. have a nice break and happy valentine's day. be well, be safe. good-bye. >> thank you. members of the public last call for general public comment. seeing no additional requests to

speak, public comment is closed. we will move to the regular calendar. item 8. 2020-0104c r.v. fis dal year 2021-2023 proposed department budget. ms. landis are you prepared for the presentation. >> we have a few slides for you today. director hillis will start us off with an overview. i will run through the numbers and go over what changes there are since two weeks ago. >> thank you, commissioners. as you know, we were before you a couple weeks ago. we are here to answer any follow-up questions we sent in

the memo that addresses some of the questions that came up. i just wanted to hit some of the highlights from the budget that we are proposing. we hope to get a full recommendation for the 21-22 and 22-23. as you know it is a challenging budget year. we are asked to reduce our general fund support by 7.5%. $500,000. we are looking at $2 million reduction off our base budget based on the look ahead of where the economy is going as we talked about in the past somewhat difficult to project. those reductions in expenditures mostly focused on vacant positions and with this reduction it will leave us with

some 20 plus vacant positions to kind of hedge against potential future reductions in fees. some of the problematic changes to the budget as we talked about were implemented the equity assess meant tool we utilized for this year's budget. we created the community equity division and continue to build the capacity throughout the department for our work on racial and social equity. we prioritize planning efforts we have been talking to economic recovery in protecting priority populations in the city. i wanted to thank debra for continued management of the budget putting us in a good place to absorb reductions. we are developing the equity

assessment tool. i will turn it over to deb. >> thank you, director hillis. looking at the revenue for next year. main change here from two weeks ago is that the impact fee budget is going down from the current year in the next two years reducing each year. because of fewer transfers to non-city agencies. we were with planning in the budget then distribute that out. in the current year we have more projects going outside of the city and next two years fewer of those. that and the expenditure is slightly different. how this is working for other city departments requesting services and recovering costs. those numbers will continue to

change over the next several months including after we submit the budget to the mayor's office based on what other departments expect to request of the projects we could support with them or for them. a note again. the reduction from the base budget. we open up the budget system and general support with $8.2 million and we are taking it down to 7.7. the other lines are unchanged. the charges for services are fees, and out year we don't know what the grant opportunities might be. the out year is lower whatever we budget. it will almost certainly increase when we come back next year and it is in the budget year instead of the out year. the revenues only big change is impact fee budget. on the expenditure side you can

see the impact fee budget is reflected in the project. nothing else has changed since the last time we were with you a couple weeks ago. the overhead number controller's office in the budget system and that happened after the planning department is done. we do know that number will change we don't know what that number will be. nonpersonnel services, contracts and leases and any nonmaterial expenses. materials and supplies we had raised the budget for 2021. we are reducing it for next year and the following year. reminder capital and equipment is anything with a lifespan more than 3 years and costs more than

$5,000. we are in a new building with new equipment i.it was in our budget last year. we don't have any projected expenses in the next two years related to equipment. projects is where we generally budget both impact fees and grants because in particular with grants the incertainty with what we are funded for and that gives us flexibility to spend it on salaries, services supplies. inter-department mental services is what we are charged by other departments. our represents, city attorney costs and department costs. again, not very much change from last time. schedule remains the same. we were at historic preservation january 20 and yesterday. with you january 21 and today.

in a few weeks we will submit the budget. twenty-first of february is a sunday. we will present it on monday this year, the 22nd. the mayor publishes her budget june 1st when we work with the board of supervisors and they consider the budget during july. that concludes my presentation. i believe we have an opportunity for public comment. if there are any questions, i would be happy to take those after public comment. i apologize if you hear the hammering outside of-front door. let me know if i need to repeat anything. >> we do hear it. we should take public comment. this is your opportunity to speak to the department work program and budget by pressing star 3 to enter the queue.

no requests from members of the public at this time public comment is closed and it is now before you. >> great job, debra for the valuable information and sound effects. we would entertain a motion. commissioner imperial. >> thank you. the budget looks generally okay with me with the priorities that we have, i also. [indiscernable] nothing has changed from the

last presentation. if i move. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. seeing no additional requests to speak from the commission there, is a motion seconded to approve this matter. on that motion commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously 7-0. we are on item 9 for 2017-015181 c.u.a. at 412 broadway. this is a informational hearing. staff prepared to page your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> good afternoon. department staff.

the item before you is an informational hearing regarding the conditional use authorization granned to the restaurant and nighttime entertainment at 412 broadway allow operating hours to 4:00 a.m. daily. it was approved by planning commission on october 25, 2018. extended hours operations first began for the penthouse club and restaurant on march 7, 2019. the commission required the sponsor for ongoing engagement and responsibilities from the liaison requirement for performance update based on the first year of extended hours of operation. that is the purpose of this hearing. the project complied with the conditions of approval. the interested neighborhood groups met twice. we met with others in the

community. the business circulated a maleler to the neighborhood prior to the extended hours operationallerting to the creation of a phone line monitored by the business that neighbors could call if they experience issues with the business or patrons or general issues. there was an intent of the performance update to evaluate the extended hours of operation on the surrounding neighborhood. as discuss understand the memos, there were no formal issues from the entertainment commission that affected the extended hours. the sfpd did not report any incidents specifically associated with the business during the first year following extended hours change nor has staff received e-mails or phone calls from the community since the change has taken place except for e-mail conditions with primary neighborhood

represents. the staff conducted in depth analysis of the incident data from mar2018 through march 2020 to capture one year prior to and after the extended hours change was made. the staff memo contains detail. there did not appear to be evidence the extended hours resulted in increase of sfpd incidents. if any there was a decrease in the incidents for the year following the extended hours change, particularly during the period from midnight to 5:00 a.m. no action is required from the commission at this time. that concludes the staff presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. >> commission chair, do you want to afford the sponsor any

presentation time, three minutes? >> yes, go ahead. >> okay. mr. paul, if you would like, you can have three minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you, president koppel, director hillis and commissioners. on march 7th of 2020 was our anniversary of first night of operations after hours under a conditional use authorization. in our first full year nothing surprising or unexpected happened. one week later covid-19 shut the entertainment industry down. that was unexpected. last day of operation was mar14, 2020. two days before mayor breed's shelter-in-place order. no public activity at 412 broadway since that day. our operations went smoothly on

march 7, 2019. 4:00 a.m. closing was popular with both guests and workers. on most weekends we observed few guests actually leaving the club directly at 2:00 a.m. following cessation of alcohol service. typically groups trickle out 2:15 a.m. to 2:45 a.m. especially those who ordered drinks at 1:40 a.m. last call they are sticking around to let the alcohol wear off before heading home. this is the effect we hoped to realize. during the year of operation, we operated with extended hours every thursday through saturday night and have occasionally stayed open after hours to accommodate large parties or unexpected convention groups on other nights. ability to remain flexible in

the interest of customer safety and neighborhood tranquility is a tremendous benefit on the permit. in addition to remaining open past 2:00 a.m. on thursday, friday, saturday night from march 2019 to mar2020 we opened late saturday night on all three day holiday weekends. of the estimated 170 nights the business remained open after 2:00 a.m., less than 20 nights did the club remain open until 4:00 a.m. typically at 3:00 a.m. the manager on duty walks the premises to evaluate how many customers remain and disposition of employees. the manager may decide how much longer to stay open. i guess my time is running down so i want to conclude by saying this has been a very successful

launch of after hours. we have had no problems with neighbors. the community likes it. the crime incidence dropped as a result of people not wandering out drunk after the last couple shots. we are careful to make sure people know where they are going when they leave the club if there are signs of anniebryation. thank you to mr. perry. his work was helpful to make this a success. >> members of the public this is an informational item but you need to press star 3 to get in the queue. no requests to speak public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> it is only informational.

deliberations haven't begun yet. there is a member of the public to speak. should we re-open public comment? >> yes. >> member of the public you have two minutes. >> i am terrance allen, original and founding president of the entertainment commission. i heard clearly and loudly. it was an honor to speak at the original hearing for this location, and to underscore the necessity of careful overlook for after hours permits, as our city grows and changes. covid struck a major blow to everyone, and the entertainment industry is especially troubled

by the inability to gather in any way, shape or form. however, we are all looking forward to the pay when tourists and conventions and the music and art community return to their venues and begin the practice of normal life. having venues open after the final hour of last call is critical to the public safety experience on the street. we encourage you to use this excellent example as a template when other businesses are getting ready to open and asking for extended hours to make it safer for customers that you remember the positive nature that this had on all neighbors, patrons and employees. thank you. >> members of the public last call for public comment. public comment is closed and the matter is now before you.

>> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i wasn't here when this item came before the planning commission. i want to commend staff on the excellent reporting and thank you for bringing this back to us this year. i am sad that the pandemic caused the activities that were going smoothly and i am pleased at the collaboration with no negative impacts but positive impacts. thank you staff and project sponsor as well. >> commissioner moore. >> just a quake view in the rear few mirror. it was very controversial at the time not because of this operation but because of disturbances in the broadway

corridor are many and the lines to delineate who did what are impossible. there was a lot of push back at that time. as the discussion and the conditions make it clear it would be a good experiment. as we hear today that experiment has paid off and we will move to the future i don't mind establishing conditions after the fact or one year revisiting of the subject matter as we have today. i am glad to see the report came out as positive as it did. thank you. >> thank you. if there is no further deliberation, commissioners, we will move to the next item. i apologize. we had intended to call up the first dr out of order at the beginning of the regular calendar. we will call item 14.

2020-0011229drp at 73 fountain street. original intent was consent calendar. both parties have come to an agreement. the request of you now is to take discretionary review and approve as modified. david, i know that both parties were informed this would be the case. i do not believe it is necessary there are any presentations. we certainly will open this up for public comment if any member of the public cares to speak to it. >> that's right. neither d.r. request or project sponsor had intended to testify. they were content with the agreement as stipulated in the report. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter for item 14 at 73

fountain street by pressing star 3. seeing no request to speak public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. the request is to take the project as modified. >> move to approve as modified. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. to take dr and approve as modified commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. thank you for that. now going back to the regular order of business items 10 and 11 are continued.

we are okays 12. 2020-001286 c.u.a. at 576 27th avenue conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. the project is requesting conditional use authorization to demolish existing single family dwelling at 5767 27th avenue and construct a two family dwelling. this is in rh-2 zoning. the existing dwelling unit was constructed the year 1912. it is age eligible not a historic research. replacing the structure is a four story over basement two family dwelling totals 4700 square feet. one dorm unit in the basement

first and secretary con. second is on third and fourth. it includes two car garage and roof deck. the department has not received any public comments regarding this project. existing structure is proposed for demolition because the size, layout and condition of the building on the lot is not conducive to maximizing density nor the rent controlled unit lost as single family dwellings are not subject to rent control. this will create one dwelling unit to maximize the density in the rh-2 zoning district. while the structure is larger than the surrounding building the design review has determined any negative impacts to adjacent properties is not significant. it is compatible and necessary and desirable for the community. we recommend approval with conditions. additionally i would like to read two corrections in the draft motion. on page 6 of item p six bedrooms

in eight dwelling units. this should be two dwelling units. page 14 under authorization the motion states eight family dwelling. this should say two family dwelling. i apologize for these discrepancies. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. thanks. >> thank you, mr. dito. >> project sponsor you have five minutes. >> good afternoon. i am amy lee i represent the sponsors at 5767 27th avenue two families with an additional set of grandparents. they purchased in late 2019 with the intent every siding together. after hiring architects and structural engineer it was apparent the current condition of the home with dry rot in the floors and ceilings and

louchelyings could not support any expansion without becomes a demolition. sponsors worked with the planning department completed review and determined it would be best complete demolition and construct two new family sized units. prior to the purchase in 2019 it was vacant over 5 years after the death of the occupants who live understand the home since 1952. they had neighborhood meeting and there is no opposition. the immediate neighbors have expressed support and would expedite construction despite efforts to prevent trespassing. the proposed structures meet the residential design guidelines, code compliant and not seeking variances. the architecture windows and the stucco and siding will be

utilized to be consistent with neighborhood. this family project was to contribute to the existing neighborhood of two to four story buildings. it is the best features of the surrounding buildings and enhances the area. we request the conditional use authorization to demolish the deteriorated building with no historical relevance to construct two new family sided dwelling units. >> thank you. does that conclude your presentation? >> that concludes my presentation. >> members of the public we should open this up for public comment. press star 3 to enter the queue. no members of public requesting to speak at this time public comment is closed. the matter is before you.

>> the project seems straight forward to me. i am in support and would entertain a motion. >> commissioner fung. >> move to grant the conditional use. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. commissioner tanner did you have comments? >> i wanted to second that. >> thank you. in that case there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the conditions on the motion commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president

koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously. we are just moves right along. item 13. 2019-020049 c.u.a. at 1131 polk street conditional use authorization. staff make your presentation. >> good afternoon, i am staff. this is conditional use authorization for property located at 1131 polk street at southwest corner of sutter street. it would establish a business containing bar, restaurant and nighttime entertainment uses. considerable use specifically required for the nighttime entertainment and 2000 square feet. zoning changes were passed several years ago within the alcohol restricted use district to return to the site without separate authorization. in addition the proposition of

proposition h during 2020 make this a permitted use without authorization. the site is under construction with a project approved in 2017. when complete the new building will reach six stores with 54 dwelling units and 88800 feet of commercial space of the previously there was the hem lock tavern a bar hosting live music and entertainment. the actions before you today are to allow establishment to return to the site. the business will measure 3570 square feet in two-story space in the same location of the tower. as noted in the staff report, the department received one e-mail opposition to the project. following publication of the staff report we received communications in support from residents and business owner in the area.

they emphasize the business will revitalize the polk street after the pandemic. inconclusion approval will allow liven betertainment compatible with the polk street corridor and contribute to culture and nightlife of the city. the two-story of the space allows larger use without dominating the block face. staff recommends approval and i am available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you, mr. guy. project sponsor make your presentation. you have five minutes. >> thank you so much. good afternoon, president koppel and planning commissioners.

i hear an echo. >> we are not. >> good afternoon. i am alexis pelosi i am here on behalf of the project sponsors. i thank the planning department for the hard work. we are seeking conditional use for nighttime entertainment and non residential use greater than 2000 square feet in the polk street. i want be to give background on the project and explain why we are here. it was started in november 2014 when my client began demolishing the structure on the site replacing with 54 units in six story mixed use building with ground floor retail. that was approved in december 2017 is 85% complete. during the process of the new building a key issue raised

concerns about the hem lock tavern, a bar at the corner of polk and hemlock. because of the lower polk street alcohol controls -- there is an echo. >> are you still there? did we lose ms. pelosi? it does appear as though we lost ms. pelosi. i suggest that we take public comment and hopefully ms. pelosi can rejoin us shortly. members of the public this is

your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star 3 to be entered to the queue. there is one member of the public requesting to speak. you have two minutes. >> hello. i am david, president of the lower polk business collaborative calling both as president of that merchant association and resident adjacent to the subject property. we are in opposition of this c.u.a. and asking for a continuance. we tried to reach the project sponsors for community outreach. they have refused to return our calls and e-mails. we have some concerns and issues regarding the subject project.

we think they can be resolved through community outreach but again we ask for a continuance until the project sponsors are willing to perform community outreach which has not been performed. we learned of this by the notice from the planning department this was up for hearing. that is about it. there is some issues. the previous business there was extremely problematic. we want to try to avert that from happening again with the new project. if we can get community outreach from these folks that would be greatly appreciated. >> so kay. thank you. i do see that ms. pelosi rejoined us. >> so sorry. i have a terrible echo. i dropped off thinking that was

it. i will go through my comments. >> you have three minutes. >> the project is under construction approved in 2017. it is 85% complete the key issue had to do with the hem lock tavern at the corner of polk and hemlock. because of lower polk street controls there was no way to close and re-open in the new building. we were working with supervisor peskin. this legislative change limited to the liquor license is it now possible for the hemlock tavern in a new building. the project sponsor thought they completed the steps necessary to return the use to the new building. as evidenced by us here that is not the case. to return a bar entertainment use to the same location in that

building two authorizations needed first for the size of the nonresidential space and second nighttime entertainment use. regarding the de stein additional soace for the hemlock tavern was below grade. the space is now split with approximately 1700 square feet above grade and remainder below grade. approximately 3500 square feet for entertainment creates a entertainment area that is functional. the hem lock tavern's history has losted live events and bands and performers. the two level space was perfect and provides flexibility for the operator. in the polk street entertainment use requires c.u. authorization. because of the two authorizations are required to return use to the knowledge the project sponsor seek to make it easier for the operator to come

in. in the letter we sent to you it is to address any issues related to noise in the building. we are seeking that any future operator needs a permit and necessary permits. regarding whether the operator will be the hem lock tavern an issue raised. we do not know. at the time of the legislative change in 2018 there was an operator to operate the bar and nighttime entertainment venue. that operate's license changed and adding covid and the impact of the bar and entertainment business it is uncertain. the property owner is committed to reintroducing the bar to the new building if it is her or someone else. i did hear the public comment and michelle from the project sponsor's team is on the phone and she can address any questions regarding outreach. there has been outreach to the

neighborhood. four letters of support the city received as well as verbal nonopposition from the lower polk neighborhood association. we are happy to talk about that. thank you to are your time. sorry for the technical difficulties. if you have questions let me know. >> thank you. that concludes project sponsor's presentation. we should re-open public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter. no requests to speak, public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. >> there is one person to speak. you have two minutes. >> i just have a quick question. i kind of had this question when you were talking about item 11. it has to do with any item that has to do with condition

permits. i am just like trying to learn more how the planning commission works. i am wondering if something is approved with conditions when are those conditions discussed and solidified. >> if you want to shoot me an e-mail i will help you out with a better understanding of that. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. members of the public last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. it is before you. commissioner moore. >> this was approved in 2017 was a much supported project right size and light location. as always, particularly today ground floor commercial uses are extremely important. i am in full support of bar and

entertainment use back to this location including the legislation which supports that use to return once it left the vacant site. the project has a lot of support and i will move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner diamond. >> question for ms. pelosi. is she still there? >> yes. >> there are two references in the findings to a locally run business operated the bar. could you talk about that? >> again, thank you so much for the question, commissioner diamond. this gets to the hemlock tavern and original legislation and prior use that was there. as i noted in the comments the intent was to return the hem lock tavern to the space and

there was a local operator to do that. in the intervening years that person may not be able to operate. it is our intent to operate a bar in a venue and entertainment space in the location whether or not it will be a local operator is not something we know at this time. of course, that would be the intent to find someone locally to take over the space. the key is to get as close as possible so when things can pick back up and we are able to identify an operator they can hospital in to work with the commission to get entertainment and those types of things. >> follow-up for staff. there is no requirement this be a local -- no condition of approval it be a locally owned business. >> correct. >> no requirement in the code for this use at this location to be a locally owned business, is that correct?

>> correct. >> it would seem given the current tenant in mind is not likely to be the tenant i am not sure why we are inserting language of locally owned 10nants. -- tenants. it is not applicable to what is likely to be the case. i am finding it confusing. i am also in favor of this project. i would suggest if we approve it that it be done in the language in the findings about a locally owned business. it confuses the decision we are making. assuming the commission wanted to go that way is that a problem from staff's perspective? >> no, thank you commissioner diamond. as we discussed earlier there are policies in the general plan which point to independent businesses which aren't

necessarily locally owned. we look at the construction of the findings if you are inclined the substitute language substituting independent in place of locally owned could be appropriate change. there is no problem striking the language out of the motion. >> i would be inclined to strike it without coming back without a permit. i don't know what we mean by independently owned. it muddies the waters. we should approve based on the use, not the user. if we don't want to limit to condition of approval i don't understand why it would be in the language of the findings. i would be in favor of approving this project subject to deleting that language from the findings depending on what the other commissioners want to do. >> is the maker of the motion amenable? >> i would like to hear other

commissioners weigh in. i have my own thoughts i will express when it is my turn. >> commissioner tanner. >> the thank you. that topic we were on. i don't have strong feelings. i would agree with commissioner diamond if it is not required to be locally owned it is unclear at this time whether or not it will be or if it will be independent. it doesn't seem to be a problem to strike the language. any formula retail would need to return. we would be aware if it is that situation. i have a question for the project sponsor, ms. pelosi. you said something on the line could describe what would take place. i am curious to know nip notices the planning -- any notices the planning department mailed out

what occurred to reach out to the surrounding area. >> michelle, can you talk to the outreach under taken? >> that is not audible. >> we are on the line. i added her in. michelle do you want to tell me about the outreach that you did. i will relay it. >> they reached out to the neighboring businesses and also to the lower polk neighborhood association. >> are you aware if it was mail, door knocking, how? what was the response from the

folks that were reached out to? >> e-mail and verbal. they weren't able to take a formal position. in the conversations with them there was no opposition expressed. >> thank you very much. appreciate that. i am supportive of this project. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to get clarification on the suggestion of the language regarding local leoned. my preference is to give local entrepreneurs the ability to open in this corridor. having a location, a liquor

license and i think for me an invitation to promote local entrepreneurs versus leaving it generic. ms. pelosi could you comment and qualify what it means to leave as it is or take away. >> thank you for the question. in talking with my client, if there is an intent to ensure the business is owned by a locally owned business operator, that is language that is fine to continue in the coped. that the always their intent. we agree it is better to work with local businesses and give them the opportunities. the language in the question was just at this point it is the project sponsor proposing, not the operator which is why we can't, you know, we are not a local operator. it is our intent to work with someone local. >> you are not objecting to simplify that language in that

particular portion of the approval but leave it up to the owner to give local operators preference? >> yes. >> thank you. with that said i am prepared to amend the motion to follow commissioner diamond's suggestion. >> thank you, commissioner moore. >> commissioner diamond. >> i wanted to point out the two sentences causing confusion. at the end of policy 6.2 on page 7 of the motion it says in addition the project would be a locally owned establishment to provide employment opportunities for san francisco residents. in section 10a the last sentence

the project would provide opportunities for residence employment that is fine. then it says would establish a locally owned business. it is those two things where it says it would be a locally owned business that are inappropriate. i am delighted to hear the owner wants to give preference to locally owned businesses and that is wonderful and we would love to see that happen. the language in the findings makes it sound like it would be a locally owned establishment. i am believing this should be approval of the use, not the user. >> commissioner diamond thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> no questions. my questions are answered. full support. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to improve with conditions relating references to locally owned businesses.

tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 7-0. that places us under discretionary preview for 15. 2018-011022drp. 2651-265 3:00tay regentleman street. >> good afternoon. david winslow staff architect. the item before you is public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2017.08 to

construct a fourth floor vertical addition rear addition with decks and roof deck to an existing three story two family house. this project was heard on february 6, 2020. almost a year ago as public request for discretionary review and approved by 4-1 with commissioner moore dissenting. the exemption issued was apbe would to the board of supervisors on -- appealed on july 28, 2020. the board overturned the september 5th exemption in the motion the board directed the planning department to analyze history of the text the ad adjacent golden gate branch

library to consider if the potential impacts of lighting inside the main reading room would impact those features. as a result, the september 5, 2019 review was resended on jan 27, 2021. no changes are made since the july 28th appeal hearing before the board. on behalf of the 2063 4:00 tavia association and green street homeowner association neighbors across the street to the east are concerned the proposed project is out of character. specifically with impact the scale of block face goes against the climate change policy by

blocking solar access to the library solar panels. elevator roof deck exceeded allowed height restrictions in the proposed roof deck will create privacy annoys impacts and result in light, view and real estate values for the neighborhood. the alternative is to remove the additional fourth floor from the project. since this report the department has received 11 letters in opposition siting impacts to light compatibility with the library and one letter in support. it meets residential design guidelines with scale and preservation of light, access to light. project sponsor designed the building to add to the existing building to maintain the scale of the street and access to

light. furthermore additional analysis finds that the golden gate library was designed with 15-foot side set back south to ensure access to light. as document understand the january 27, 2021 exemption, department determined except for class one for existing facilities. department determined the project would not results in a significant impact on historic resource including golden gate branch library. in terms of project meets secretary standards for rehab participation. it is retaining the character defining features as outlined in the standards and losses. it does not require further evaluation. as discuss understand the

preservation memo prepared january 26, the adjacent golden gate by liar reis a historic resource and is currently undergoing landmarking. the department determined that the libraries reading room is a character defining feature of the library. inferior light level are not. the proposed project will reduce some natural light through the half windows on the south elevation of library. the department determined the project would result in minnesota mallorie deduction of natural light and no significant impact to the character defining features. to fulfill the board direction the study was prepared and supported the conclusion the project would not reduce the indoor light level in the reading room. the proposed project will not result in any other changes to the adjacent library.

because the 2019 approval relied on the september 5th ex else constituted approval action we are asking the commission to review the project in light of the new exemption and approve relying on this new exception. in addressing other issues by the d.r. requesters the proposed design extending the roof to incorporate the scale of street and features of the existing building front. the 10-foot wide at the ground level and entry is widened. window sizes answer proportions are similar scale as neighboring buildings. furthermore solar panels are not protected by state or local laws. doing so would allow them as de facto impediments to

development. the code allows -- [indiscernable] >> we are moving right along there we lot your audio and video. are you still there? turn your video off. >> i turned video off. >> now we can hear you. >> very good. i will pick up where i think i left off. solar panels are not protected by state or local laws they would impede development. the code allows certainly projections to exceed height. roof deck is five feet from side, front, rear building. the roof slope is set back 20 feet from the front building wall to impose minimal impacts to neighbors with respect to noise and privacy. from loss of light to other

neighboring properties is not exceptional or extraordinary. as the proposed set back and width of the street provide more than reasonable distance for the additional story with respect to light. the dr does not present any extraordinary circumstances. staff recommends approving the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. i am joined by ally son and kay from staff. we are happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we should go to the d.r. request. you have three minutes. >> thank you, i am representing the group of residents and neighbors on behalf of the golden gate valley branch library. they received -- the public and

planning commission received the daylight impact analysis report one week prior to this hearing. not enough time to review the complicated and detailed study. we request more time to fully review the materials and from each commissioner who did not approve the previous dr to approve the board of supervisors packet. we would like to speak to wishes. it impacts solelar panels and light of the library. it alters street scrape with the rooflines on octavia. increases the foot present without contributing additional housing. we request clarification that the project applicant will reimburse the city for the cost of daylight impact analysis report. this is a picture of the interior of the library showing the reading room, a key defining

future. the windows and light contribute to the experience of the special volume. no one can argue natural light is not integral to the library. this was designed with windows for maximizing the right to the reading room. it may not be material entity it contributes to the reading room. to obstruct light would alter the reading room as much as physical. the renovation in 2012-inch stalled high performance windows controlling solar heat and solar panelings butt the south windows ensuring the light is converted. the library windows will be blocked. solar panels are directly above these windows. regarding the streetscape. the city residential design guidelines state buildings should respond to articulation

of the buildings. the impact analysis makes the roofs look boxy. the actual conditions are that the roofs are varied. the proposed project does not meet city guidelines. it is larger and boxer. >> summary. this expansion negatively impacts. the review of the studies reveal it has negative impact on the library. it shows decreased natural light to the south windows and reduced function of the solar panels to meet the clean energy goals. expansion changes roof gain. project does not provide additional housing. we request the planning commission to take the dr and encourage the sponsor to modify to lessen the impact. thank you.

>> thank you. >> project sponsor are you prepared for your presentation? >> yes. >> you have three commits. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is the second time we are before you to defends our proposed plan. we are in the process of obtaining permits for the projects since august 3, 2018, two years and six months. the plans are to enlarge the buildings to accommodates ada compliant living for our families. at our first hearing it was 4-1 not to take dr. the maybe neighbors stated it would have adverse effects to the gold ten gate valley library. the board of supervisors upheld the appeal and requested the study be performed on the interior of the library

p.specifically i am going to talk about our impact on the library because it was already determined from the previous er the other points the requester brought up today have been agreed to. the space is 25-foot wide building with workstations surrounded by windows. north east and west are nine windows. they flood the space with natural light. there is a large light bulb between the two buildings which allows the light to the windows. i want to discuss the interior study and environmental department did on the request of supervisor stefani.

evaluated skies for september and june. three times of the day 9:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. the library concluded the vertical addition reduces the light level. overcast sky mines 4%. partly cloudy skies 11.1%. clear sky -1.8%. is important to note for all times of the day for existing and proposed conditions on partly cloudy skies and overcast skies electric lighting is required to meet the idf standard minimum for libraries. the small difference in light during these times are irrelevant. the next three slides show the

existing and proposed conditions side-by-side. visually you can see there are differences in light level. this is the first clear sky scenario. difference 1.8%. you can see no difference in light values in the existing and proposed. very little difference between existing and proposed. >> thank you. that is your time. you have two minute rebuttal to tip the presentation. public this is your opportunity to speak by pressing star and 3 to enter the queue. you will have one minute each.

>> hello. this is bridgett i am the author of the landmark designation report. i did send in a letter that you should have received. i wanted to point out two key points. i really believe that the light is a key component to understanding the volume of the space. it is flooded with natural light as the applicant just noted. the space is further impacted with the increased development. secondly, the other libraries are landmarked only one hads a slightly taller building adjacent to it. it is the building adjacent to that was probably constructed

prior to the library. thank you. >> members of the public last call for public comment on this matter. you need to press star and 3 to enter the queue. go ahead, caller. >> hi, i am calling in support of the project. is this the correct time? >> yes. >> i am sarah. i am part of the design team for the project. i just wanted. >> ma'am, i am sorry to cut you off. you are part of the project team. your time to speak is during the project presentation. next caller. >> hi, i am calling to register concerns about the project. i am a neighbor living on green

street. i just want to reiterate how important the library is. it is historic and landmark resource. significant fund-raising was done in the city and from the community and our family like many other neighbors contributed fairly significantly to the library. the design and restoration of it really accounted for such light. i really -- light is such an important issue in san francisco. it would be a horrible shame to lose what this library enjoys. thank you. >> go ahead, caller. >> hello. i am a neighbor a block away.

i want to call to register concern. i want to underscore that we are not talking about one private residence next to another one. we are talking about impact on a very important public resource serving visitors of all ages offering high-quality programming at no cost. this is one of the most beautiful library branches that draws people from all over the city. the light study you have been delivered focuses on models, not real life experience. this modeling talks about not the quality of the light. we know that natural light is different from artificial light. the park a block away if we cut

the natural trees and replace with plastic trees they would have the same experience. same is true with natural versus artificial light. >> members of the public last call for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. we should go to rebuttal from the d.r. requester, ms. holt. you have two comments. >> since this is complicated study and detailed. i have a background in statistics and i am not a light expert. we need more time to absorb and review this study and to look at some of the conclusions that were forwarded that seemed that they could have been interpreted

multiple ways. that is the first thing with the study. second thing is the caller just called to bring up the quality of light. that is huge. light is not the majority light in the room. this was designed to maximize natural light coming in. on the planning department's website there are archives speaking to a 1915 pamphlet which says the site is chosen to emit light on all sides. there is a 2001 document that says all carnegie libraries contain natural light from tall windows. light is a characteristic and defining feature of this. in terms of otherrish views, we are very concerned why the city allows the development to compromise investment in

renewable energy. why are private citizens. [indiscernable] it only benefits private developer at the expense of cultural public city asset. why aren't other city departments weighing in? we would like the city to confirm the daylight impact study was reimbursed by the project sponsor and not a city and taxpayer expense. finally, we did receive 19 or 20 letters of support sent to the planning department. we have broad support across the community. from individuals and groups as well. >> thank you. sponsor you have two minutes.

>> slide 9. regarding the light in the library. the study was done with no electric light proposed. look at this slide. the daylight calculates the difference between existing and proposed light. [please stand by]

>> clerk: great. thank you. members of the commission, that concludes the public hearing portion of the project. the matter is now before you. commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: happy to jump in.

thank you, mr. winslow for our work on the project and the project sponsor. i want to say i agree this is a huge asset. it's an important location. and the design does having light and the access to the sunlight is a huge feature really of the library and the way it was designed. a similar review of the extensive and informative information regarding the shape of two solar panels and shading impacts of light to the windows itself, i don't see that this project has a significant impact in reducing the light for the solar panels or the light into the interior of the library. i would be prepared to not take the d.r. and approve the project, as proposed. i would like to hear from other commissioners. >> president koppel: i would second that and call on commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: i would say the same. reviewing what is in front of

us, there is no -- aside from the fact that the study itself is difficult to read partially, [indiscernible] question of quality of light. it's tonality, its shape. it's not clear to me. the objections that i have before is that i do not believe that private development should be impacting on public resource, public asset. further to that, the fact that this project does not observe the typical stepping of building from the entire block. and impact both on space. and i find that a negative.

and since the units in question are already sufficienty large, the project is basically enlarging without adding density, i find that objectionable, especially since it was more focused with the project first around. private interests impacting the public spaces is a concern. those neighbors supporting the library and renovation and conserving with private resources, i can only stand with them. and basically not support this project that is in front of us today. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: yeah, i was reading this. and thank you mr. winslow in

forwarding the golden gate landmarking document. and i find it interesting reading the historical background of the golden gate library and architectural history. one thing that noted to me that stands out the most, is the shadow impact. and even though the shadow impact analysis, you know, mentions that there will be -- in different day cast, like 1.8 on clear days. negative impact on it. however, when looking into the existing daylight there's 47.8%. that means almost half of the library right now doesn't receive natural daylight. when you look into the history

of this kind of library, that is designed to have natural daylight -- i agree with the public on this. it is designed to increase natural daylight. even though the negative impact will be 1.8, that's still significant. when we look at given the shadow impact a .01, .02 is already significant. depending on the uses. and not because a library -- also, this library where it's also affecting the children's library and a -- i mean, the children's reading room and adult reading room. so i am more inclined to take the d.r. to just the bulk that would not place more shadows significant on the historical building itself.

i'm happy to see -- i mean, also on top of that, since this is in the proposal for landmarking, i think we need protections in terms of historical buildings in our city. so those are my comments. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: the library is an extraordinarily important building. and light in the library is very important. but i feel like the staff did an exhaustive drive with the shadowing light analysis. and that the impact is minor. and that the sequenalysis is sufficient and not resulting in exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that result in taking d.r. i don't believe it would use the solar panels as a way to say no to this project approval. otherwise, we would be setting a

precedent for all over the city allowing anyone putting in solar panels to prevent construction next door to block light to the solar panels. so i am prepared to accept staff's recommendation. >> president koppel: commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan: thank you, president koppel. i want to take a closer look to the project and thank you to the members of the public for your comments and especially for your concern for the library and assets. i have a few questions for planning staff. i'm wondering if the library has weighed in about the potential impacts? i don't know if that's a question mr. winslow could answer. >> it's not. not that i'm aware of. i'm going to ask our staff that are on this call of this meeting as well if they have had any input from the library?

allison or jake, was there any input from the public library staff or administration with respect to this project? >> not that i'm aware of. >> commissioner chan: okay. thank you. i was curious. and i also wanted to clarify if staff has done a site visit? i think in the packet, a sponsor mentioned half the windows facing this property were already covered on the bottom half. i want to understand if this is something you observed and tie in about the potential impact from your site visit. >> yeah, thanks for the question. in fact, we did a site visit

with preservation staff, who are not on this call, prior to the last hearing. while it's anecdotal evidence, but we observed in early february, middle of the day, was a very light-filled room with the shapes that come from the bottom up, about halfway, if recollection serves, halfway up three or four of the, i think five or six windows in the great hall that face the southern exposure. leading me to anecdotally again, observe that light might be a problem from the standpoint of over abundance in some instances. i think it's certainly filled with light. and i believe it was a clear and sunny day at that time. >> commissioner chan: thank you, mr. winslow. i think it's helpful to have the anecdotal evidence.

and then, on top of the study with more statistical evidence. so i appreciate hearing get other commissioners' comments. i think it's important with the natural lighting to the building. i think it's really clear these main reading rooms are like any part of the library, you use the library as the various reports stated for having sufficient light and ventilation from all sides. i don't think given the evidence that we have before us, we have to respect and include the potential impacts of the project do not lie [indiscernible] those are my comments. >> president koppel: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: i'm acceptive of staff's position on this case. >> president koppel: thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been

seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion, commissioner tanner. [roll-call vote] >> clerk: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: no. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> no. >> clerk: this passes 5-2. with commissioner moore and imperial against. that concludes your commission today. based on your perfect attendance, you all deserve a break and i'll give you next thursday off. >> thank you. >> we're adjourned. >> thank you. >> for the afternoon. [adjourned]

>> good morning, the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, february 4th, meeting of the government audits and oversight committee. i'm supervisor dean preston, the chair of this committee, and i'm joined is by connie chan and committee member supervisor raphael mandelman. thank you to john carroll, and i would like to thank sfgov tv for staffing

this meeting. mr. clerk, do we have any announcements? >> yes. in order to protect the public and city workers, the board of supervisors and legislative chamber of committee room are closed. committee members will attend the meeting through video conference, and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they they were physically present.

[inaudible] >> the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted, and you will then begin your comments. best practices are to call from a quiet location, and turn down your television, radio, or streaming advice. everyone must account for delays. alternatively, you may submit your written public comments by using e-mailing me, my e-mail address is johncarrollat at sfgov.org.

your written comments may also be sent by a u.s. postal service to our office at city hall. 1 carlton place, san francisco, california. and items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisions agenda on february 23rd, 2021, unless otherwise stated. agenda one is an ordinance amending the administrative code to establish protections for occupants of residential hotels during the covid-19, making it city policy to place in solitary hotel rooms those who meet the criteria for isolation or quarantine, and requiring the department of public health to post a notice in the common area, and notify the operator of a residential hotel. when a resident have

tested covid-19, to fas facilitate contact tracing and cleaning. and establish a hot line to respond to questions about covid-19 and tracings. and provide daily data concerning the incidents of covid-19 among residents, and access to quarantine rooms, and the number of such residents who died due to complications from covid-19. members who wish to comment should call the public comment number now. 415-655-0001. i.d. 1464694309. please wait until you hear a system prompt that indicates your line is

unmuted. that will give you time provided to comment. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk, and with thanks to supervisor peskin for his ongoing leadership on the issues raised in this ordinance. i would like to recognize supervisor peskin and turn the floor over to him to make any remarks on this item. you are muted, supervisor peskin. >> it's always like that. thank you, chair peskin. i just wanted to quickly say that i will be asking for a continuance to our february 18th government audit committee, if your schedule can accommodate that as ongoing discussions between my office and the department of public health are moving at pace, and i'm hopeful that we'll be able to come to an agreement in

the next couple of weeks. and with that, subject to public comment, i would ask that you continue this item to your next meeting. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. is it your preference, supervisor peskin, to have any and all presentations regarding this matter at the continued time? i know the b.l.a. is available now, are there any parts you would like to hear now? >> i think we can save it to the following meeting. >> chairman: unless you have any questions for comments, colleagues, let's go to public comment. >> thank you, mr. chair. the operator is checking to see if we have any callers in the cue. for those who have already connected to our meeting via phone, please press star 3. for those on hold in the cue, please continue to wait until your prompted

to begin. for those who are watching our meeting on cable channel 26, if you wish to speak on this ordinance, call in by following the instructions displaying on your screen, by dialing 415-655-0001, following that, you would enter the meeting i.d. 1464694909. and then you would press the pound symbol twice, and star followed by three to enter the cue to speak. mr. coop, would you let us know if we have any callers on the line for public comment? >> mr. chair, we have no callers in the cue. >> chairman: thank you, operations, and thank you, mr. clerk. so hearing no callers, public comment is now closed. can i have a motion to

continue this item to our meeting on february 18th? >> a motion to continue the item to the february 18th regular g.a.o. meeting. >> yea. >> chan, yea. >> member mandelman? >> yea. >> chair preston? >> yea. >> chairman: thank you. mr. clerk, can you call the second item. >> clerk: yes, just a moment. agenda two is the reenactment of emergency ordinance 59-20, as later reenacted by 90-20, 136-20, 270-do.

to provide public emergency leave related to covid. members of the public who wish to have public comment, should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1464694909, and press the pound key twice, and then press the star 3. you should wait until you hear the system indicate that your line has been unmuted. one more thing, mr. chair, i'm in receipt of a memo from your desk for the board of supervisors for consideration at the february 29th, 2021 regular meeting. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. i would like to welcome to our committee supervisor mar and turn the floor over to him. >> thank you so much, chair preston.

i'm chairman mandelman. this is the sixth time this policy has been before this committee, so i will be brief. public health emergency leave was created to fill in the gaps from the families first coronavirus relief act -- i'm sorry -- which was passed in 2020, but which left out a huge part of the united states workforce by exempting the largest corporation from the requirement to offer additional paid leave to workers impacted by covid-19. we immediately acted locally to fill this gap, and this law does just that, providing a full two weeks of additional paid leave to over 200,000 san francisco workers impacted by covid-19 and not covered by the s.f. c.r.a. it allows our frontline workers to take care of themselves are thrine there families. i ask for your support for

this policy for an additional 60 days. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor mar, and let me thank you for all of your leadership on this item and also your early flexibility on this in making the adjustments needed to make sure that our smaller businesses were not being unduly burdened, but that we were passing these protections in a targeted way, and i appreciate your leadership on this very much. colleagues, any questions or comments before we move to public comment on this item? seeing no one on the roster, mr. clerk, do we have any callers on the line? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. operations is cheque checking to see if we have any callers who are ready. for those who have already connected to our meeting via phone, press star followed by 3. for those on hold in the

cue, continue to wait until you are informed your line has been unmeeted. unmuted. if you wish to speak on this item, please call in by following the instructions displayed on your screen, by dialing 415-655-0001, and then by ending the meeting i.d. 1464694909, followed by pressing the pound symbol twice, and then pressing star, followed by three, to enter the cue. mr. coop, could you please connect us to our first caller? >> mr. chair, we have no callers in the cue. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk, and thank you, operations. with no public comment, public comment is now closed. and can we have a motion to refer this item to the full board with recommendation as the

committee report. >> so moved, chan. >> chairman: thank you. can you call the roll, mr. clerk? >> clerk: on the motion offered by vice chair chan, this ordinance be recommended by a committee report, vice chair chan? >> yea. >> member mandelman? >> yea. >> chair preston? >> yea. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk, can you call the next item. agenda number three is a hearing on the progress and findings of investigations into public corruption. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, and enter i.d. 1464694909, followed by pressing the poundsim poundsymbol. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. i will be turning this back over to supervisor

mar. i first do want to thank you, supervisor mar, from all of your work as the chair of this committee, and since the day you took office is, in prioritizing anti-corruption measures, and i very much appreciate you being here in committee on this item today. so the floor is yours, supervisor mar. >> thank you, again, chair preston. and thank you for allowing this item to be heard today. we called this hearing back in march of 2020, when the concurrent investigations into public corruption by the city attorney's office and the controller's office were announced. since then, we held this hearing twice before, to receive, review, and discuss the findings and recommendations of the public integrity review reports issued by the controller's office, as their review and investigations continue. today's hearing will focus on their most recent report, which takes a deeper look at ethical

standards for contracts and work processes of the airport and other commissions and boards. the goal of this hearing is to give the controller's office an opportunity to express and explain their report. it may be necessary to hold additional hearings or discussions with other entities, including the airport, the ethics commission, or the city administrator's office. but that is not our focus today, and today is certainly not the final word on these issues. and more work is needed. i do want to mention that we have already submitted a drafting request to codify some of the recommendations from this report, and we'll have further opportunity to discuss and address these issues if and when that ordinance is issued and discussed. i'm grateful for this opportunity to hold this discussion and to hear from the controller's office on their work and findings. public corruption survives on complacency.

as lawmakers as the legislative branch of the city and county of san francisco, as a crucial check and balance in our city government, we cannot look away or move on without accountability and structural reform. so thanks again, chair preston, and committee members for allowing us to have this hearing today. before we go to the presentation, i just wanted to see if you might have any opening remarks. is. >> chairman: i do not. i'm looking forward to hearing from the presenters. >> thank you. i would like to welcome mark delarosa and mike distrom.

>> chairman: thank you, supervisor mar. chair preston and supervisor mandelman. >> i'm the acting director of audits for the controller's office. i'm joined by todd lestrom, the deputy controller. and let me first share my screen for the presentation. >> chairman: sorry to interrupt you, but we are getting some background noise. i do not know if it is on your end or others on this call, but if folks who are not speaking could mute themselves, that would help. thank you.

>> can you see my screen now? now? >> chairman: yes. >> again, good morning, everyone. so today i'll be sharing with you highlights of the fourth installment of the work products that we have completed so far from the controller's office. this one is one that we issued back a few weeks ago, on january 11th, on the ethical standards for contract work at the airport commission, as well as other commissions and boards in the city. as previously mentioned, we have gone before this committee to present our previous assessments. the first one was back in july, when we presented before you the public works contracting

assessment, back in october, when we presented before you the non-city organization's assessment. there was also a corresponding agenda item on the department process, which is our third deliverable. and this is the fourth one in the series. i'll go through the other pending and forthcoming assessments later on in this presentation. just to provide a background and context on our public integrity review in the controller's office, about a year ago now, in february 2020, after the (indiscernable) to shed light on the internal control weakness sunding surrounding the claims against mr. crew. we want to address the

internal control weaknesses, improve transparency, reduce the risk of fraud, and ultimately safeguard public funds in the city. in conjunction with the controller's office, and they are related to misconduct by current and former city employees, as well as contractors and venders. what we're presenting to you today is a preliminary set of results, and we're offering them for public comment and review, as indicated in our reports, and as in our previous assessments, we may revise them in the future. our recommendations, some of which are quite general by design, and we really didn't want to be too prescriptive and providing information. we conducted this assessment because,

obviously, of the seriousness of the allegations. but wanted to know in contrast to our previous public integrity assessments, we found no substantial structural problems or issues that impair overall controlling environment surrounding commissions and boards involvement in procurement processes. but we propose changes that could enhance the processes and further enhance transparency in the city. just to provide a backdrop on how our findings and recommendations tie in to the federal complaint that was issued a year ago, this is just some background per the f.b.i. affidavit that alleged in 2018, number nurer and mr. nick bollo tried to

bribe (indiscernable). during one of the taped conversations, miscrayton indicated her willingness to do favor for mr. nuru. and ms. crayton indicated she would check to make sure that the lease was not promised to others, that she would find out ho would be on the selection committee, and that she also indicated, per the complaint, that she will do everything she can to assist mr. bolvis insecure bolvis insecuring the lease. and that mr. nuru planned to use this position to assist mr. bolvis in using the lease, in exchange for benefits provided by

mr. bolvis. however, mr. bolvis was unsuccessful as obtaining the lease, as indicated in the complaint. just to provide additional context on the process at the airport, within the airport commission, and the airport as the agency, you may already know that the airport commission is the policy body that oversees the san francisco international airport. this commission is a five-person commission, who's purpose is to formulate, evaluate, and approve goals and objectives, as well as awarding leases for the airport. the airport serves as the chief executive officer for the department, and has the full power and authority to administer the airport affairs. the airport commission is made up of the five members appointed by the mayor, with no term limits, and under san francisco charter section

3.100, the board of supervisors may reject appointments. of the three long-serving commissioner, each has been on the commission for 14 years, and clayton served for 24 years. it is also important to note that the commission itself may not, or is precluded from interfering with the airport's day to day management. and as units of the airport's commercial division, the revenue development and management division, or r.d.m., is really the one who is managing the leases, activities of concessionaires at the airport, and they develop and administer proposals for use and bid packages, and they are the ones who are the primary contact for the concession tenants. i also wanted to note that

per san francisco code section 28.173, concessionaires at the airport must be chosen through a competitive solicitation process. i also wanted to note as one of the criteria that we used was that per san francisco charter, section 9.118c, contracts of $1 million or more are subject to additional approval by the board of supervisors. this is just to provide additional contacts from a representation of the process itself. really, the key point here is that the contract award process at the airport commission and the department itself is a pretty robust process that is primarily led by r.d.m., or the revenue development and management division, with a few touch

points with the airport commission in obtaining approvals, including in the commencement of the bid, in accepting the proposals from the proposers, as well as in the awarding of the commission package. another context is -- this is just a representation of all of the various revenue contracts at the airport. and revenue contracts are basically those that produce revenues for the city. and at the airport, from july 2015 to august 2020, they awarded a total of 99 agreements that spanned retail, food and beverage, rental car, and various services, that had a minimum annual guarantee amount of $123 million. again, this is just to provide additional context on the various findings

that we've found and reported. this next slide, slide number seven, really is the beginning of our findings. the first one that we wanted to highlight is more of a positive finding, as opposed to a negative finding, and that is that based on our assessment, the airport did appropriately award concession leases based on solicitation results. so despite ms. crayton's alleged as insurance to mr. bolvis, the airport did not award lease number five, which is the subject lease of the f.b.i. complaint. it wasn't awarded to mr. bolvis. in fact, mr. bolvis did not ultimately submit a proposal as part of this solicitation. based on our review as well, the concession lease

number five was actually awarded to a bidder based on the solicitation process. we also learned that ms. crayton would not have had the opportunity to ensure mr. bolves was bolvis was awarded the lease as the airport commissioner had no direct contact with r.d. m. solicitation process. all of the findings we're reporting are really confirmed by another audit that we actually separately conducted back in 2019, in which we concluded that the airport properly administers the solicitation process in accordance with the city policies and procedures, and that they grant concession leases in accordance with their policies and various laws.

the next set of findings here on slide number eight really speak to commissioner crayton having had an improper communication with a potential bitter. bidder. and in this case, it was mr. bolvis. she leveraged her position and authority and did not report the improper request for preferential assistance. according to the complaint, ms. crayton met with the proposer for the terminal 1 food and beverage lease, which violated the r.f.p. instructions. [inaudible] with the intent to influence the outcome.

although mr. bolvis did not submit a proposal, ms. crayton should have reported the improper request to the city attorney. to further shed light on what practices exist in other city commissions and boards, we did a very limited survey of certain key features of a few of the commissions in the city. so we surveyed the court commission, the recreation and park commission, m.t.a., as well as the p.u.c., public utilities commission of san francisco, and the trans bay joint power authority. i just wanted to highlight here some of the key take-aways from the survey we conducted, in comparison to what the

airport processes are. we found that in terms of solicitation, none of the commissions reported having their commissioner being involved in the actual solicitation process or the actual evaluation panel's selection process. we also found in terms of the approval, all commissions approved contracts with different thresholds and parameters, but all are somewhat involved in the approval process, with the airport being involved on all concessions and leases. in terms of written policy prohibiting communication with bidders, we found that the airport and m.t.a. did have a written policy on this prohibition. we also found that in terms of the department's statement of incompatible activity, or s.i.a., that all commissions we surveyed had this s.i.a.

prohibition on selection, except for the t.s.a., since they involve multiple jurisdictions. we found in terms of the r.f.p. instructions, all surveyed entities had the instructions on bidder communication. given the findings, we then set forth five recommendations related to what we found. first being that city commissions and boards should revise their policies and procedures to include requirements to address members' involvement in contract award process. this is really to make more explicit such rules and policies that we have. the second recommendation relates to s.i.a. training, and really in consultation with the ethics commission, we recommend each city

commission and board to annually train its members on the various provisions within the s.i.a., and that they should also have some sort of a reporting mechanism to increase awareness and transparency on the s.i.a. the third is the codifying on the selective assistance. we recommend the city law should be recommended to codify the city officials and employees, that they should not knowingly provide individuals or entities. this is to further strengthen the requirements and make such requirements explicit. the fourth recommendation is on the inclusion and enforcement of communication restrictions related to solicitation documentation. and then the fifth recommendation that we put forth relates to the ethics commission working with the city attorney to

consider codifying solicitation, to ensure there is consistency on this requirement city wide. the next set of findings we have on slide 11, refers or relates to how the city may benefit from codifying limitations on commissioner and board of directors' involvement in the contract award process. currently the san francisco charter section 4.902 outlines the powers and duties of the boards and commissions, but it does not say what boards and commissions should not do. in what possible example we provided, based on our limited scope survey, was an example from los angeles county, which has codified director and commissioner involvement in contracts. so our recommendation, therefore, is for the city to consider whether it

would be warranted to codify the roles of commissions and boards, including limitations in the contract award process. the fourth set of findings relates tot measures the airport has taken, in response to certain allegations in the newer complaint. we found that the airport has continued to strengthen their contract policies and procedures, including adding restrictions by bidders and proposers during the quiet period in request for bids. and they implemented a competitive selection process communications, that has prohibited communication with potential and actual proposers during their restricted communications period. and we've also incorporated solicitation documents, and they're

trained their staff, and they've also updated their guidelines to ensure that evaluation panelists' names are confidential and they do not appear in any memorandums. the recommendations, therefore, follow that the airport should regularly issue reports to their commission, listing the published solicitation, so that there is an awareness among the commissioner of the pending restrictive communications period for each of the solicitations that go by the commission. we're also recommending that the airport should recommend the newly proposed aspect of the department's solicitation process that they have begun to implement during the course of our review. the last set of findings or recommendations really relate to the need for increased or enhanced filing and data-driven decisions.

one requirement we have related to transparency in the city is the san francisco campaign and government conduct code, section 1.126, (indiscernable) where a contract must be approved by the city elected officer, a candidate for a city-elected office, or a committee controlled by such an individual. since january 2019, city departments and city-elected officers have been required to report when a contract has a value of $100,000 or more per fiscal year for the departments, for example, to report or complete their form 126f 2 within 30 days of receipt of the proposal. and for them to file that form within five business days of the approval of the contract. both these forms, f-2 and

f-4, are attracted separately, but they're not in the city's system. basically while filing and tracking such an information is important because contract ap approval -- the city could use information that elected officials must provide when filing their form f-4, which includes the name of the bidder, the subcontractors, owners, directors, and officers. we also point out in our assessment that the revenue contracts are not yet configured to be stored in the city's central and financial procurement system, and pointing out that information collected through the city's essential system can really facilitate awareness of entities or individuals that are

subject to the city's competitive solicitation policies. the recommendations that we put forth then follow for the city to direct departments to require proposers to submit key information about their affiliates and subcontractors. the earlier that we collect this information is the better to avoid conflict of interest. require the departments to obtain this information for contracts that are not subject to f-4. we also recommend that to promote data-driven decisions, for the departments to work with the controller's office regarding plans, including incorporating revenue contracts, as well as any other improvements that are necessary to better meet the department's needs. and that concludes our

presentation. this next slide is really just to highlight what we have completed so far, the four reports that we've issued publicly. there are three other ones that are currently still in the works, in the process. the next one up is on the citywide ethics requirements, another on the department of building inspections policies to award permits, and another one on the san francisco public utilities commission's contracting process. we still, as indicated before, plan to issue a final report on the various topics that relate to these preliminary assessments, and, of course, additional reviews are going to be incorporated as needed and as the city attorney's investigation proceeds. that concludes our presentation. and we'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> chairman: thank you,

mr. delarosa. i appreciate the presentation. supervisor mar, do you want to begin with any questions? >> yeah. thanks again, chair preston. thank you so much, mr. delarosa, and the controller's team for this review. i had a few questions, and i'm sure, colleagues, you guys do, as well, so i'll keep it brief. my first question is around the statement of incompatible activities. it is my understanding that back in 2003 the city adopted a ballot measure that required the creation of statement of incompatible activities across departments, and we currently have 40 or 50 of these s.i.a.s, including for the board of supervisors, i would add. mr. delarosa, i'm wondering if you conducted

a survey, summary, or compare and contrast, of all of these s.i.a.s, prior to researching this report. and i'm curious if there are inconsistencies in the s.i.a.s across the departments. there are different commissions that have different roles, but are these s. i.a.s complete, and are there any s.i.a.s that you found especially problematic. >> supervisor mar, very good question. we conducted a very limited set of survey of just a handful of different commissions. we wanted to focus on those departments that have an oversight body, just so we can compare the airport's s.i.a. to those that are relatively

comparable. so we looked at, as i mentioned, rec and park, port, p.u.c., and m.t.a. and we didn't really do a very deep dive on kind of the qualitative differences, but we do know there are similarities, but there are also differences. and that there is a need to make consistent at least some baseline language related to selective assistance, related to what is allowable, what is not, in terms of what is necessary. and just making it more robust, i guess, is one of the key recommendations that we have. although there are some common languages, as i mentioned, having consistent and comparable requirements across the different departments would be necessary. >> great. thank you. i would agree with that

recommendation that, you know, there is a need to look at consistency, or how we could have further consistency across the s.i.a.s, and that's something i'm interested in following up on. my next question is more around the specifics of the misconduct and ethical violation by the airport commissioner. while their powers and duties are not enshrined in our charter, doesn't it also carry the force of law? and, additionally, currently s.i.a.s cover people who are responding to r.f.p.s or r.f.q.s, and are you wanting to expand this to cover potential bidders?

>> that is correct. in response to, actually, your first question on the similarities, one of the key things we do want to propose as a recommendation relates to inclusion of the potential bidders, because i think right now there is obviously those that are currently bidding, who are covered under the s.i.a.s, but it is really expanding it to the potential bidder because that's the area that we certainly do not currently include in our s.i.a.s. in terms of the legal protection and/or the coverage, i would certainly probably defer to the city attorney on that one, on a legal matter. but definitely s.i.a. is one of the tools we have to ensure that there is clarity in terms of expectations and in terms of requirements of our city commissioner and board of directors, as

well as elected officers and department heads. >> thank you. i would like to understand how widespread these types of violations and misconduct are? this example obviously came to light because of the u.s. attorney's criminal investigation. so my question is whether this is just the tip of the iceberg? mr. delarosa, do you have any data or assessment about how many or how frequently commissioners or department employees have been accused of or found in violation of our ethics rule, providing a competitive advantage to entities seeking city contracts? >> again, the lens that we applied in conducting our

assessment was definitely we tried to limit it to what was included in the federal complaint, and basically ex trap plated ex trad that. we are definitely limited, at least in our scope, in conducting this assessment, focusing mostly on the internal controls, and not so much whether it is prevalent. and i definitely defer to the city attorney, given they are the ones focusing on the investigations into the individuals and the vendors and the specific players at hand. >> supervisor, if i may,

deputy controller. our sight line is limited, but to the degree there is whistle-blower complaints, for example, or reports, we do work with the respective law enforcement agencies, as well as the deputy city attorney and district attorney, and others, as we're required to do under the charter, if there is an alleged misconduct. that is one area where we have potential opportunity for information to the degree we have anonymous whistle-blowers. otherwise bad actors, by any employee or otherwise, it is difficult for you and/or even us to have sight line because of the limited sight line, for lack of a better description. >> thank you. just on that, for the whistle-blower complaint program that the

controller's office staffs, do you have any data you can share over these types of complaints that might have been filed over illegal assistance by city officers and employees -- >> sorry to interrupt the discussion, mr. chair, and supervisor mar. we have been joined by a sixth member of the board of supervisors presently, that being supervisor walton who came in to provide comment when we get to agenda item number four. this meeting -- sorry, this item in today's agenda is not written to accommodate the potential quorum for the board of supervisors. so i would ask any sixth members leave the meeting until we get to a point later on in our agenda, where we can have five or -- >> no problem. >> thank you very much, president walton. attack, mr. chair, for

allowing me to interrupt. >> chairman: no problem. let's make sure he is notified as soon as this item is complete. so he can get back on. >> noted. thank you. >> i had a followup question. i was just wondering if you can share any data, or just general assessment, of the whistle-blower complaints might have or have been filed for these types of cases where city officers or employees are accused of providing illegal assistance to entities seeking city contracts? >> thank you, supervisor mar. we do routinely provide our quarterly and annual reports and provide some breakdown as far as the types of complaint. we would want to circle back and consult that

level of specificity. but i don't have that off the top of my head. >> okay. i would love to see that, thank you. my final questions are around the part of your report, as focused on the 126 form that is -- wem, well,this is an important tool for preventing pay-to-play politics, as relates to elected officials, and at the contractor approval level, for commissioner communications would the 126 form capture and reflect the information for the people who would be directly working on a contract? for example, 126includes reporting on the bidder, subcontractor owners and directors and operators, and it includes high-level management, but it may not include the staffers who would actually be working on a project, and who would be most likely to be

in contact with commissioners. if we had these forms submitted when a contractor submits a bid, that still wouldn't prevent the kind of situation we saw with mr. bovis, who had not yet actually submitted a contract. is that correct? >> correct. through the chair, so the information that is currently required under the 126 forms, f-2 and f-4, you're certainly correct in that it does require the names of the subcontractors, which may or may not be the one set city staff are interacting with. so to the extent it is a required field in the f-2 and f-4 forms, which, as you mentioned, is the c.f.o.s, the board of

directors' operating officer, and individuals with similar titles, and then it won't be exhaustive of the various players within each of the vendors that are represented. >> maybe i'll leave it at that, chair presidio. preston. >> chairman: i want to echo the thanks to mr. delarosa and the controller's team not just for this report, but the series of reports, and the previous ones as well as the ones that are coming, as you complete your work on this, and i appreciate you being here today to share this with us. >> i have some questions

to followup on what supervisor mar was asking about other complaints of misconduct. i'm curious specifically with respect to the airport commission, in relation to contracting, the whether there has been any similar allegations of commissioner misconduct, either with respect to this commissioner or others. it would seem to me that that would be relevant to the analysis of the extent to which we're dealing with a one-off situation versus a structural issue. can you share that? were there any prior or current complaints of misconduct at the airport commission and/or in relation to contracting at the airport?

>> we would happy to share the information in our annual report. we would also be open to reviewing -- we have to balance the public information with the whistle-blower protection integrities of our local regulation as well, to make sure we have a program that provides those protections without creating a new potential issue for our whistle-blower. so if you would, i would be happy to work with your office, as well, through the city attorney, to consider what might be available through a closed session, through the g.a.'s office or otherwise, if that is acceptable to you. >> let me rephrase it to maybe avoid these issues. i'm trying to understand if in your analysis, are you made aware of and factors in any similar

complaints. as you look at assessing the problem and making recommendations, i'm trying to understand if other complaints are walled off by the city attorney's investigations and ethics, and you limited your inquiry to what was in the complaint regarding the specific allegation, or whether the controller's office was made aware of the existence or non-existence of similar complaints involving this commissioner or others? >> chair preston, i just wanted to highlight, one of the key things i wasn't able to speak of, one of the things we started, in response to the newer investigations, establishing a public tip line that basically

fielded specific tips from the public, and from various entities, that relate to the newer investigations. we certainly took that on as, you know -- to the extent that it is relevant to the whistle-blower program, we took on those as complaints, or as reports. and then whatever is related to the city attorney's investigation, we passed them on to them. one thing i can note -- nothing currently, just looking at the current roster of reports that we have, there are no currently open complaints or reports related to the airport. but we'll definitely, as todd mentioned, we can

certainly look at them. and as related, we incorporated them as such. we'll go to what our quarterly reports say and what we're able to share in a public quorum. >> thank you. i'm trying to get as much clarity as possible. i think we all understand they're in the nature of whistle-blower complaints, there are things that cannot be shared, and there are pending investigations by the city attorney may be things that cannot be shared. at the same time, as i think we're trying to assess how the structures are doing, and, you know, as well as the recommendations, we need to know what the scope of the analysis is. and along those lines -- so there is a statement in the report, and you repeated it in your presentation, that the controller's office found no substantial structural

problems that impaired the overall control environment, regarding commissions and boards procurement policy. can you explain for the committee and the public, when you're talking about there are no substantial structural problems, can you just explain what that covers? what would be a structural problem versus a non-structural problem? >> yeah. to the chair, it is one thing that i can certainly explain in terms of what is substantive and what is not, is in comparison to the previous two assessments that we've completed. so on the first one, on the public works contracting, we certainly found that there were procurements, procedures, and policies that were not followed as should have been. so that was definitely a

structural and a very significant lapse in terms of an internal control not being followed by the department. on the second one that we issued on the non-city organizations, whereby the department of public works had a non-city account, in which they actually used to procure and purchase various either operational needs of the departments, as well as i think one of the more frequently quoted as the holiday party. so that was definitely an egregious use of what is not a formal relation between a department and a non-city organization and how that is being used. [please stand by]

so i think it's just

conceptualized within that example. >> thank you. let me -- you can respond as you see fit. let me just maybe share what's going through my mind as i look at this, because essentially the implication of the report, even if it's not stated in this way, but i think the combination of finding no substantial structural problems, knowing that there was no resulting on the contracting process, and the repeated references in the report that the commissioner to,

i think, if all of that is true, leads to a sort of common-sense assumption that someone had -- if the allegations are true, had an improper meeting, attempted to make a bribe. the bribe was refused, and even if it had been accepted, i mean, that there was no ability, that there was no ability for a commissioner to in any way deliver on the thing that was sought by him. and i will say that i'm hearing that frankly with the actors and the facts of the complaint, right? like here you have very --

pretty sophisticated folks who know this government well who are attempting to make -- if the allegations are true, are attempting to make a bribe, and yet the findings here are that -- they are attempting to make a bribe of someone who has no power to do anything. right? and that is a -- it's sort of hard to accept that on its face. i'm not asking you to read people's minds, but it's -- i just want to suggest that, like, the kind of -- it doesn't -- in some ways doesn't add up. i mean, people can do irrational things, but i -- you know, ms. creighton is -- according to the complaint, is saying that she's going to make sure she has everyone on board. she's going to find out who is on the selection committee, but what i'm hearing from and seeing from the report is that

structurally there's no way that could have happened, at least under the rules. what's missing is does that happen. like, is there a violation of those rules? is she promising something, was she promising something she can deliver? that's what kind of screams out to me from the allegations and in reading the report is sort of left unanswered. and i guess maybe your reaction is resolving that issue a matter sort of outside the scope of the controller's office and something that is city attorney and u.s. attorney would look into as, like -- do you include in here and analyzed potential breaches of this protocol of the type that would have been necessary for ms. creighton to carry out what is alleged here?

>> if i may start, mark, for a response to supervisor preston, the chair, so the approach and the work that the controller's office is doing is to look at the best practices and the assessments, and so the report and the finding noted there is that for structural purposes, looking at the competitive process, the solicitation process, what was in place and codified, whether it be the admin code or otherwise, those policies and those requirements were carried out and appeared to be properly done so by the airport. in no control environment does it guard against the possibility of one or more multiple bad actors, and so the allegations related to this specific case, i'll defer to the city attorney on an open investigation, of course, to preserve the integrity of that investigation. so our approach in which before you today is generally for the control environment for the

commissions, for competitive solicitations, what are they doing, allow are they doing it in a way that either complies with what's already codified or not, and what can be recommended to ensure going forward additional sightline for you, the elected officials, as well as the public. no control environment will be 100% successful in preventing any bad actors, albeit if we have enough commissions in place to provide that transparency as early in the process as possible, that's the lens we look with this assessment. but again, this is a preliminary assessment. we are really noting down every question that you're having, additional perspectives, because we want to hear them from you, from the public and from others to see if there's something that -- you know, some perspective that we missed, or if there's a blind spot. >> thank you, and yeah, and i want to be clear, like, none of this is intended as a criticism of this thorough report.

it just raises additional questions and things that we may want to follow up on, and i just -- perhaps you can just clarify just a little further to the extent that there is a breach in the protocols described here, to the extent that commissioner creighton was -- or any commissioner was delivering on what she allegedly was promising to do? in other words, they were aware of who was on the selection committee and were taking steps to try to ensure a lease award to someone, right? what is the -- so structurally what is the oversight process? short of someone else filing a complaint, a whistle-blower complaint, my understanding is fellow commissioners wouldn't have oversight over this because they wouldn't even know who the potential bidder or the bidder was, right?

so in that situation, what is the oversight, how would that come to light, if at all, short of a u.s. attorney file? >> thank you for that question, supervisor. so one potential way for sightline or awareness or knowledge would be through the whistle-blower program to the degree that either an anonymous or a non-anonymous complaint was filed for a potential misconduct for contracting, that would be adjudicated through as required under the charter and referral to the respective department and/or law enforcement agency, the deputy city attorney's office, for example, or the d.a., depending on the charges or the allegation. and so that would be one of the possibility. it's one of the internal control strength of the city that we have that program with the ability to do anonymous complaints. so that would be one possibility. again, none of us have complete

sightline of what one individual may be doing and the ability of if they have knowledge to do it and if they have actually acted upon it to the degree of this case or others, that would be part of the investigation process under the charge of the deputy -- or the city attorney's office, for example, that can compel testimony or otherwise. i'd defer to ms. pearson. i believe she's here as well, if she would have any other comments. >> good morning. i'm actually joined today by deputy city attorney ron flynn who is working more closely on these issues, so i would defer to him if he wants to add anything at this point. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> yes. >> great. thank you. thank you. i would -- first let me provide you a little background of what the city attorney is doing in

this area in general as opposed to the particular airport commission focus. in january 2020 when the mohammed nubru complaint broke, from the very beginning, from the day the f.b.i. came to his office, i have been involved and my office has been involved, and at that first search we learned that mr. nubru was going to be charged, and we pledged our support for the federal investigation because this is an important public as supervisor mar and preston declared, this is an important public integrity issue. we do have a public integrity unit which was immediately placed on this project and started to work with the

controllers, and we came and we divided up tasks. our preliminary determination was to really look at both an internal and an external focus. the internal was what employees are involved, and you are getting at some of that. like, how do we know what the employees are doing? and then the external, what vendors are involved? and so as to the internal, what employees are involved, a lot of that was anonymous in the beginning and much of it has become public for reasons outside of our normal during a client communications that remain confidential, it is important for us to maintain who we are talking to and what we are looking at as confidential for two reasons. one, there are pending criminal charges against individuals, and we have worked with the federal government to not interfere

where that criminal prosecution is taking place. nonetheless, we have made it clear we are going to do our independent investigation. how we could interfere is it is that as it was just said, we can have compelled testimony. we do not have the tools necessarily of the federal government, which is wiretapping, which is how they found much of this and, you know, going into bank accounts, but we do have the tools of a compelled interview without probable cause, so we can have the awarding authority, have people come and sit and talk to us. we have spoken to more than . . . if information that arises out of our compelled interviews becomes public in a way that is not controlled, the criminal defendants can use that and say that they are -- they have

been -- their rights against self-incrimination have been violated and the charges should be dismissed. we do not want to prevent the law enforcement agencies from moving forward, so we have been very careful about what we've said about our compelling. the whistle-blowers and the employees that we are talking to have rights that are privacy under the m.o.u. so with that said, i can -- i want to focus a little bit on the external and then i can answer some questions on the internal. the external players became pretty clear to us pretty quickly. it has grown a little bit, but it was pretty clear that the players that were accused of either giving money or giving some sort of other favor to

mohamud nubru were also dealing with other city members, city employee members. and so we followed those contracts, those vendors and those contracts to see how they were awarded, and that led us to the p.u.c. with walter wong who was one of the ones who was alleged to have given money to mr. nuru, who led us to what was going on with the contracting at the p.u.c. we have a list of -- we came to this board and asked for a tool that we would be able to suspend people, vendors who are accused of wrong doing, and now that we have that cool we are lining up the officers and directors who have been accused, and within the next two weeks we are going to suspend additional vendors. we will have eight vendors that

will not be able to participate in the procurement process. we have to date not allowed them through other mechanisms to procure. i would say that following those vendors and the money, it did not led us to the airport, and i think some of the reasons we have worked closely with controller on these issues, some of the reasons is that are in the report that the airport had a robust set of roles and procedures that were in place. i cannot answer why someone would go out for a drive that may not be successful, but it is -- it was clear that there were other departments that were willing to seek favors for these vendors, d.p.w., p.u.c. we have evidence that those

vendors have from the very top been giving sort of extra time, extra day, but we did not see anything of that nauch at the airport, so we don't have an answer as to why someone thought the airport was amenable to that. we have not found it. >> and thank you for that. allegedly it's because the commissioner is at first saying that she is able to intervene in that process, despite the structures in place, but i appreciate the clarification. i do see on the roster supervisor chan. do you have some questions or comments? >> thank you, chair preston. i do have a couple -- actually, this is going to be a three-part question specifically for our

controllers office. maybe the third part is really for the deputy city attorney pearson. this is going to be referencing in your presentation about the charter section 9.188, and that is specifically governing our contract and lease limitations within the city, and with this, though, i think my first question is why in section c is that -- or point c i guess that the port commission is exempt from this section? all the lease property. >> through the chair, todd rydstrom, deputy controller. that's specifically related to maritime property, and i would respectfully defer to the city attorney on the charter there

9.118. >> who would like to take this? >> that is the provision of charter section 9.118 which defines the categories of contracts that are subject to review and approval by the board of supervisors. it was amended back in 1997. i don't know -- exclusion for contracts under the port jurisdiction were added at that time, and i can't honestly speak to what the motivation was to exclude them from the board's jurisdiction. i'd be happy to look at the history of that to try and explain why they were carved out, but i don't know the history of it right now. >> no problem. i think the second question is -- i understand, you know, the board often functions as a check and balance, you know, for the entire mechanism. i guess my line of questioning really is to try to understand how effective this specific, you

know, mechanism that we have placed really is effective at playing a role in corruption, or at least uncover corruption, and so then for those departments or commissions, when they go through these contract and obviously in this case according to the charter sections that when it's over a million dollars it has to come to the board for approval, and i -- then my question is because it -- when i'm looking at this section, it doesn't really tell me, so i hope it's through either the controller's office that the city attorney can tell me, are there any repercussions in the case a city department does not refer a contract over a million dollars for the board approval? or does it even get approval at all if it doesn't come to us for approval? >> i'm happy to speak to that. as i said, the 9.188 lace out

the categories of contracts that are subject to board approval. these are contracts that must be approved by the board in order to be legally effective. so if the contract meets the criteria for 9.118, if it was a contract that would bring in a million dollars and is not sent to the board for approval, we would argue it's not a legally binding contract. >> that's great to know, and then i think this is my last question. the last question -- >> we have someone who needs to mute themselves. >> thank you. >> thank you, and so i think my last question is with these contracts that is over a million dollars when they do come to the board for approval, and i probably should pay more attention, is that whether these

statements of incompatible activities both from the competition and from the city department heads or, you know, from the city department are actually included in these contracts when they come to the board. >> so the statement of incompatible activities is a document that's adopted by each city department, and it generally governs the behavior of the employees of those departments, so there is one for the boards, for example, that dictates what, you know, what type of activities are incompatible with your role as a supervisor. and so when a contract comes to the board for the approval, people who have worked on that contract might have been found by their department's statement of incompatible activities, but i don't think there's anything that travels with the contract to the board that connects it to

the statement of incompatible activity. >> great, and i guess i should correct myself. i think -- and this is the part where i need clarification. my assumption is that they do have to submit or report similar to -- at least my recollection as a city employee, your department, your hr do give you a little letter and that you're supposed to report if you actually have any, you know -- any incompatible activity, and i guess that my specific question is: assuming everybody do comply and then they say, you know, waive, i don't have any -- i think it's a volunteer self-reporting mechanism, at least from my previous experience, and so my question would be do we have currently a mechanism where the department head also do have to file that reporting, and if they do, then my assumption, what you're saying is it actually does not

come with a contract. >> i don't think activities travel with the contract, but there is other information, and that might be part of the form 126 or other forms that are -- that move with the contract and do get lojd with the clerk of the board when a contract comes to you for approval. i think the contract -- i see the controller's office nodding and i think they might be more familiar than i am with those forms and the riement that they get lodged with the clerk. i would defer to them to speak to what those requirements are and what information is contained in the form that does get contained in the board when you consider contracts. >> so it is complex, and that's one of the things that we were looking at for the process, as spoken to by mr. della rosa.

so for the competitive solicitation process, while the department may have a statement of incompatible activities, for example, only select individuals as named in the administrative code are required to file form 700s, for example, for statements of economic interest. in addition to that, departments will routinely have as part of their panel process that panels must attest to that they do not have -- even if they are not already a named employee required to file a separate statement of economic interest, for example. the ones that are routinely going in your packet, and the good work of the board, ms. calvilo, the work has been done to make sure they include information as responsive to allow the elected official to be able to successfully file their forms, the f4 forms, for example, for campaign purposes or campaign finance purposes. so that is all helpful to the

degree that that information comes to you, board members, as complete and accurate, and so -- but to know all of the subcontractors and the prime contractors to know the owners, the board of directors' numbers and also the key officers, absent the department, contracting department providing it, as well as the bidders and the suppliers for writing it as part of their responsive responsible package, that would be very difficult to do downstream, and so that's one of the key recommendations. it provides sightline earlier on in the contracting process and the solicitation process to have at least a potential prevention or sightline increase for the public and for any person involved who may be an interested party or potentially interested party and who should not be contacting the department or the commission or board members as part of the quiet

period. >> thank you. and through the chair, and this is to deputy city attorney ann pearson, and i think at this committee i would like to express interest, you know, the city drafting legislation, if you know, let's explore what are our legal options for required documentation that will come to -- come along with a contract that would disclose these activities, or in some kind of mechanism when these contracts come to the board for over a million dollars for approval according to section, you know, 9.118, that we actually have the mechanism and have some kind of documentation for the board to review and determine whether we want to actually question any further how these contracts come about by either the panellists

that review the bids, or as well as the city department heads or executive team that make those decisions, and its commission. and i think it's across the board, not just for the -- i know that today we're only talking about airport, but i will in a separate conversation and later on to dive deeper about the port commission as well and just out of my curiosity why are they exempt. i think consistency is key for all that has happened at airports, but i think without a consistent structure that really help us screen and filter, this should actually happen to any commission, so i hope that could -- we can have that discussion. >> happy to work with you on that. >> thank you. and my questions are completed. thank you, chair preston. >> thank you, supervisor chan.

supervisor maendelman? >> thank you, chair preston. i was inspired to speak by your comments because i guess in the conclusion at least of this analysis of the airport comes to i think at least in part is it seems to -- seems like the system kind of worked at the airport, and i think it's fully possible that people who are crooked can also be dumb, and that they can imagine that the way they've operated in one part of the city government should carry over, because that's just the way things are, and then they hit up against the wall which is the way it's supposed to work, and it seems to me like that's kind of what happened at the airport. like -- so i guess i would like some confirmation that that is in fact the headline, or one of the headlines, is that the airport was able to resist

whatever was going on in the rest -- you know, in some of these other departments. but i'm also curious to think about what the controller's office, city attorney's office think is going on differently at the airport that might have made it more corruption resilient than public works and potentially p.u.c. i mean, one big difference seems to be the trail in at the airport was engagement with a commissioner rather than an engagement with the department head. so it seems like what's going on in the staff leadership side and in the, you know, the management of the actual department is pretty important, but are there some high-level takeaways about -- is there some way other than -- maybe it's just don't have corrupt department heads,

but is there -- and do you have any thinking on what might be going on differently from the airport versus p.u.c. and public works that allowed the airport to come out a little better from this stress test than those other two departments or agencies? >> todd rydstrom, deputy controller, what we have as far as the differences or similarities mr. dalai rose has put in the table. to the degree there are different elements about provisions in the statements of inxetable activities or -- >> [indiscernible]? >> pardon me? >> i mean, do you really think that it's kind of like the statements of incompatible activities that makes one department corruption resilient and the other corruption vulnerable? >> no, sir, that's not what i intended to say. maybe i cut out. >> okay. >> but to the degree that we've

looked at elements where there are similarities or dissimilarities, the commission structure, the process for the notification and the rfps to prohibit the communications, for example, we have included that in report. to the degree that there's a tone at the top difference, that's one thing that, you know, we've written in our report as far as what is the tone from the top, how does that high-integrity tone at the top get fostered and promoted much like holding hearings like this is important and lets the public as well as departments know that you're looking. how are departments complying with what you dictate in your admin code as far as how contracting must be done and what the competitive process must be done. that can be part of a compliance audit and was part of our review process. but if there are specific elements that you want us to

consider more of, we're happy to take that as an idea. other than that, i don't have a separate headline. >> i just think it's -- there are many differents between p.u.c. and public works. on the one side airport on the other and you talked about a number of things, and i'm wondering if there are some that strike you as maybe maximally important versus minorly important. i mean, how important are the differences of statements of incompatible activities and that kind of thing? >> through the chair, supervisor mandelman, i think a lot of the -- what todd rydstrom mentioned is definitely right on it. the entire internal control environment within each of the organizations that are involved are very different, and some have, right, an oversight body whereas d.p.w. did not have.

some have a variable set of robust procedures, not least of which is having an s.i.a. which does have a specific provision on the potential bidder. so it's really a collective of those factors, and one thing that we're trying to do as part of our final, final report is trying to bring that all together to see if there's anything that's in the internal control environments of the city in general and of the departments in comparison with each other would make a difference, and we'll definitely consider that as part of our final, final report as we, you know, put this all together, and done at the top is certainly one of those topics that we've addressed in the past and we will certainly address in our final report. >> yeah, i mean, i guess what mr. rydstrom is referring to is the chart on 24 and 25.

it's a chart that gives you differences, but it doesn't -- if the structure around rfps -- yeah, i guess just sort of how much you can do in the way of changing the structure and how much is about individuals, i guess, is maybe where this question is going. all right, thanks, everybody. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman, and you know, a comment on that, because i hope your interpretation is right and that facts would show the airport commission to be more corruption resilient, as you put it. i will say in looking at what happened here, it's unclear to me -- that may be one of the interpretations. i do wonder, like --

>> i'm not saying the commissioners were resilient to corruption, but it seems like your in is different when you're, like, trying to find someone on that commission versus when the staffing of the agency is itself -- >> right. i think the point that i just wanted to make, and similar to what i was saying earlier is i don't yet know whether that is the case. because what we don't know is did the commissioner have the ability to perform what she was initially promising to perform, or not? and at some point there are any number of things that could be in the system and the structure is working, it could be that she catches wind of the fact that there's investigations and is concerned and therefore refuses to take the funds. there are any number of things that could have occurred, and i

will say it's certainly unresolved from the report and the information that's public to date as to whether -- whether there was a deeper problem involving staff and others or not. i don't want to say there definitely was. i just don't think we know, and i don't think any public information really re-solves that, although i do appreciate mr. flynn's point in following the trail of at least contractors, that that trial has not -- has led to other agencies and not to date been to the airport. so i just wanted to add that. i think the controller's office, mr. dela rosa will probably agree that resolving that question is outside the scope of this report as to whether the

commissioner did or did not have the ability to intervene in the contracting process in the way that she was promising. do i have that correct, mr. de la rosa? i don't want to put words in your mouth. >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> unless supervisors chan, mandelman or supervisor mar have any additional questions, then seeing no one on the roster, mr. clerk, let's move to public comment on this item. >> thank you, mr. chair. operations is checking now to see if we have any callers in the queue. please let us know if we have any callers that are ready. for those who have already connected to our meeting followed by phone, please press star followed by 3 to be added to the queue. you will hear a prompt that informs you that your line has been unmuted. for those watching on cable or

streaming link or st gov tv.org, please call in following the instructions that will be displayed on your screen. could you please bring us our first speaker? >> can you hear me now? >> yes, we can. please begin. >> great. david fillpel, good morning. sorry i missed most of the item. i was over in the committee on information technology discussion. i did hear a little bit at the end there about the airport and what happened or may have

happened. i would note that both the airport and most of the m.t.a. were originally part of the p.u.c. before they were spun off at various points. i actually think that the p.u.c. is perhaps the best example of a good department, not perfect, but a good department that has controls and has an internal audit function headed by nancy hom and that todd rydstrom knows very well because he oversaw that whole unit. there's something we can learn from having that internal audit function in a large department like that and maybe having that in the big six departments that do major contracting m.t.u., p.u.c., airport, rec park port and d.p.w. would be a helpful

specific that could come out of all this. i'm sure there are other things, and i'm sorry i missed the earlier part of the discussion, but thanks for listening. >> thank you for sharing your comments. could you bring us the next speaker on the line. >> hello, mr. chair. that completes the queue. >> thank you, operations. thank you, mr. clerk. hearing no further public comment, public comment is now closed, and colleagues, unless there are additional questions or comments from either committee members or supervisor mar, and i am seeing no indication that there are, so i'd like to move to continue

this item to the call of the chair with thanks, again, to the controller's office and city attorney's office for their presentations today. >> on the motion offered by chair preston, the new chair, that this item be continued to the call of the chair, vice chair chan? >> aye. >> chan aye. member mandelman? >> aye. >> mandelman aye. chair preston? >> aye. >> preston aye. mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> thank you, mr. clerk. please call the next item. >> agenda no. 4 is -- >> sorry, before you do, with apologies for interrupting you there, but i think i caught you in time, my understanding, while we have supervisor mar here, is that supervisor mar may want to

offer an amendment back on item 2. i would like to move to rescind our vote on item 2. mr. clerk, please call the roll on that. >> all right. committee acted to recommend the committee report agenda item no. 2. i would now hear a motion to rescind that vote offered by chair preston on that question vice chair chan? >> aye. >> member mandelman? >> aye. >> and chair preston? >> aye. >> mr. chair, there are no objections and agenda item no. 2 is now before the committee. >> thank you, mr. clerk. supervisor mar, i believe you wanted to address possible amendments to this item. >> yes, thanks again, chair preston. colleagues, i really apologize for this rescinding request and short notice on this.

my office has distributed a set of proposed amendments to the three enactment ordinance to you by email. these amendments were just approved by legislative review, and we feel it's more appropriate to make these amendments today at committee rather than at the full board meeting now that we can. deputy city attorney ann pearson has advised us that these amendments are considered non-substantive. they would remove the provision that requires public health emergency leave be required even when employees are not scheduled to work. we felt this provision was important to include at the on-set of the pandemic given the level of uncertainty and quickly changing understanding of covid-19, and the pace of change to our public health orders. at this point, however, we think it's appropriate to remove this provision. removing this provision has made this lot consistent with all of our other labor laws and has the

support of the office of labor standards enforcement who feel this change would help them with the implementation and enforcement of this law going forward. it would simply mean employees would be eligible for the expanded leave whenever they are scheduled to work. they are not eligible to use the leave when they would not otherwise be working. these amendments would also add an exemption for social enterprise non-profits. this is an exemption we included in what -- in a ballot measure version of this ordinance that we had prepared but ultimately tabled last year, and we are proposing this now because of the loss of revenue for these types of entities due to the pandemic combined with their social benefit focuses and their not-for-profit status. it would not exempt health care provider non-profits who would still be required to provide

leave to their workers in -- of this law. again i apologize for this late notice on this, but since we are now able to, i feel it's most appropriate to make these amendments at committee and ask your support in doing that today. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mar. thank you for the amendments, and unless supervisors chan or mandelman have questions on those, and in an abundance of caution, even though we have had public comment on the item, just in case anyone wants to comment on the amendments, i would like to open the item up for public comment, mr. clerk. >> thank you, mr. chair. operations is checking in to see if we have any callers in the queue now to provide public comment in a second round for agenda item no. 2. could you please let us know if we have any callers who are ready? for those who have connected to our meeting via phone, please

add yourself to the queue to speak to this item. for those already in hold in the queue, please wait until you are prompted to begin. for those who are watching our meeting on cable channel 26 or through streaming link or through sf gov tv org, if you wish to speak on this item, now is your opportunity. please phone in by following the directions on your screen. could you please bring us any callers that may have stood up for this item? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you, operations. thank you, mr. clerk.

colleagues, may we have a motion to amend item two as stated by supervisor mar? >> moved, mandelman. >> mr. clerk, please call the role. >> on the motion to amend as offered by member mandelman, vice chair chan? >> aye. >> member mandelman? >> aye. >> chair preston? >> aye. >> mr. chair, there are three ayes on the motion to amend. >> thank you. and could we have a motion to forward the item as amended to the full board with recommendations? >> and still as a committee report in consistency with the previous --? >> yes, thank you, mr. clerk. >> on the motion now that this item be recommended as amended as a committee report, vice chair chan. >> aye. >> member mandelman?

>> aye. >> chair preston? >> aye. >> mr. chair, there is no opposition. >> thank you, mr. clerk, and thank you again supervisor mar, and mr. clerk, please call item 4. i won't interrupt you this time. >> it's already. i still have to take my notes for the previous item. here we are. agenda no. 4 is an emergency ordinance requiring the department of public health to prepare a covid-19 vaccination plan and to make publicly available on its website information relating to the number and availability of covid-19 vaccines in the city. and the methods by which people who live or work in the city may access those vaccines. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this emergency ordinance should call the public comment number, enter the meeting id for today's

meeting, press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting and then enter the queue to speak with 3. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. please wait until you have been unmuted and then you can begin your comments. as with agenda item 2, we are in receipt of a memo asking this be considered as a committee report to be potentially sent to the board of supervisors for consideration during the february 9 regular meeting. >> thank you, mr. clerk, and thank you to the sponsor of this item, supervisor haney. welcome to the committee on which you sat for a couple of years. welcome back, and i just want to thank you for your leadership around the issues -- the really crucial issues in this -- raised by this ordinance, and also thank and recognize our board president for making sure that this item could move quickly

without our normal 30-day hold on items so that i think if interest's any items that -- if there's any items that command urgency and a prompt hearing, it's talking about vaccinations in this middle of this pandemic. so i will turn it over to you, supervisor haney. >> thank you so much, chair preston and members chan and mandelman. good to see you all. this was my former committee that i served on for over a year, and it's good to see clerk carole. the hair looks amazing. thank you for scheduling this. there continues to be incredible urgency around the issues raised by this ordinance. i want to thank you, chair preston, for your support and co-sponsorship, as well as to the other co-sponsors, chan, walton, roanan, preston and mar.

this ordinance was introduced last week, and as noted it will require our health department to create and submit a written comprehensive vaccination plan to vaccinate all san franciscans who need and want a covid-19 vaccine. i want to start by appreciating the leadership of mary ellen carol who i know is going to be with us today, and everyone at covid command, and especially our front-line health care workers who are out there administering the vaccine. we deeply appreciate them and we know they are doing all they can, and if there's anybody who really wants to, of course, bring an end to this pandemic, it is our health care workers. i know we are all eager to get vaccines into the arms of every san franciscan who needs and wans one. every day that goes by while we are not doing this as fast as we possibly can will have tragic immeasurable consequences for our residents, many of whom are waiting to see their loved ones,

for our small businesses needing to fully reopen, and of course for our students and educators who want to get back into school. it is also important that we do this fairly and equitably in addition to facts, reaching those who have been disproportionately impacted by the virus in a way that does not cause unneeded stress, anxiety and even trauma for our residents who have already been through so much. even though of course right now we are hearing a lot about the challenges presented by supply, we do expect that supply will soon increase very rapidly, and it is critical that we have a full plan, a comprehensive plan, transparency, accountability and full partnership with the board of supervisors. two months after the first dose of the vaccine was administered here, there has absolutely been progress, including literally during this meeting this morning when the mascony site announced

and there was a website put up for people to make appointments, some of which was called for in this legislation and is a very welcomed set of progress. but we know we have a long way to go. even when we look at surrounding counties, there are clearly ways where we can improve our administration, communication and transparency. each of us has a responsibility to support this work, and as the city's legislative body we are all getting questions from panicked and confused constituents, and we have a responsibility to make sure that they receive support and answers. before i prepared these comments we had one vaccination site. now we will have two vaccination sites, and previously we had no public registration link. thankfully that is how changing, so we're looking forward to hearing updates on those things and some of the other sites that have been opened and how people can have access to them.

our vaccination efforts for many weeks have been deferred to large health care providers, and that has left some conflicting messaging about the role the department is playing, which i hope we can also clarify through this hearing and through the plan as a result. we do have some data up on our dashboard, but beyond high level numbers we don't know who has been vaccinated and by whom. the federal government has been calling on localities and the state to be more transparent with data, and this legislation will help us improve there. the challenges of limited vaccine supply, restricted guidelines on who is eligible and specific requirements on transportation and storage of the vaccine are awesome going to be of concern, and limitations. the state has also continually

changed its guidance and vaccine distribution structure by the week, but it only makes it more critical and essential that our city has a clear, transparent and detailed plan and communication strategy for our residents. they are grappling with a lot of anxiety and, as i said, in some cases added trauma around where they stand, around how to get answers, and we have to be there to support them as well as provide the clarity on how they can have access. this legislation will improve our transparency, our planning, our accountability and make sure that we can work together to get this done. so finally just to be totally clear on what this ordinance will do and why we need it. one, it will great a clear and comprehensive vaccination plan that addresses how we are going to vaccinate 900,000 people in san francisco by june 30, a commitment that d.p.h. has made through mass vaccination sites, community clinics and mobile

units that can reach communities hit hardest by covid-19. we have heard commitments that these requirements -- of these requirements at our hearing last month to date, but we have a few large sites identified and no timeline on any of the other vaccination channel. our website states that most people receive a vaccine now from one of the three vaccination sites, but until this morning there was no information on how to sign up, and some of the other sites, there is still no information on how to sign up. data transparency -- secondly, it will create data transparency so that the public can see jupt date information on how many vaccines we have administered, the breakdown of who has received the vaccine, who has administered the vaccines and more. we should at the very least provide the same amount of data that we do on testing. other counties like contra costa and san mateo have this disaggregated data available on their website. the private providers two weeks

ago our hearing also committed to providing this data yet we have not added any data disaggregated in this way publicly as other counties have. and lastly our communications strategy so that people know exactly when they are eligible and where they can get the vaccine. our current notification system does not provide details for people who are eligible on how to access the vaccine, basic information including how to get the vaccine through different health care providers should be easily accessible and available to residents no matter what language they speak. again preparation for bringing this ordinance forward, i've spent a lot of time looking at other county websites. many of them have this, and this legislation will require that we do the same. we will hear today from covid command director carol and the deputy health officer on what d.p.h. has been doing to provide health access to san franciscans. a number of exciting announcements were made in the last couple of hours and i'm excited to hear more details and

have the opportunity for us to ask questions about those, and i know that they are prepared to focus on what has happened especially since our last hearing where we learned a lot, and i know this is very fast moving, and i'm looking forward to having these questions answered and also discussing how we can get the requirements put forward in this legislation met as soon as possible. so with that, i will turn it back over to you, chair preston, and i believe we have mary ellen carol and dr. boba who are here. >> thank you, supervisor haney. director carol, the floor is yours, welcome. >> hi, good afternoon. i believe we have some slides. do we know who's -- >> yeah, sorry, i have slides. i need to be made a presenter or host so i can share them, please. >> thank you.

>> yes, while ariel is getting that set up, i just want to thank you for having us here today and, yeah, we are in a time that is extremely hopeful. we are thrilled to be able to be putting vaccine into arms, and it's also very challenging. i would say in the last year of doing this response this is probably the phase that has the most anxiety, the most questions and anticipation, and so i just want to acknowledge that this is both hopeful and challenging for all of us. we have been working very hard at the covid command center obviously with a partnership center throughout the city, but primarily with our partners at d.p.h. to get our vaccines

operations up and running. our goal is to be ready without hesitation to get every vaccine into arms that we can as quickly as we can into different modes, and the doctor will talk a lot about the vaccine strategy. so with that we can go to the first slide, and i will turn it over shortly to the doctor. >> thank you, dr. carroll, the slides disappeared from me. >> i do see them. >> okay, great. so thank you. thank you chair preston and supervisor haney, supervisor mandelman and supervisor chan. i'm going to provide a brief update where we are with

vaccination. things are rapidly evolving and everybody is working very hard to try to get as many shots in the arms as possible. so in terms of vaccinating and where we're at, can you see that for all of san francisco -- or what's been administered in sprisk, i should say -- san francisco, i should say, we've had over 110,000 doses, and specifically for san franciscans it's over 80,000 doses. these have been divided between first and second shots, approximately 9% of the population has been vaccinated to the point of are we getting shots in arms fast enough. we are utilizing all of our allocations that the department of public health gets, 62% of vaccines have been given. the remaining 38% are earmarked either for a first appointment scheduled this week or for second doses. so all allocations, the entire

allocation has been determined and accounted for. next slide. so i wanted to take a minute to review the city vaccination strategy. as a reminder, we have a three-claw strategy, including our high-volume site, our community vaccine access sites, and our pharmacies. just to, you know, share how fast this is moving, the federal government announced this week that they would, in fact, start allocating directly to pharmacies outside of the nursing home and the long-term care facility partnership that they had already developed. so pharmacies will get direct allocations to the sites to be able to vaccinate the public. we are waiting to hear exactly which pharmacies will get these. it is -- the announcement is like to go into effect later next week. in general, our goal here is that all of these sites would serve the public. so it wouldn't not -- you wouldn't have to have a certain

type of insurance or, you know, meet a certain type of criteria to go to one of these sites. it's meant to be the easiest site to access that a person could go to it. as was mentioned, we know that one of the issues has been how do people find these sites. so having an easy front door accessible through the web, but we know that's not the only way people are going to have to access these sites, especially when there's digital divide concerns or other concerns that we're also going to have to use, you know, our community partnerships and other ways of reaching fairly vulnerable populations to schedule appointments. our goal is to create a network of vaccination sites to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible, especially as the supply increases, and we are seeking to provide as many options possible for people to obtain their vaccine. the cheap obstacle that we're facing is currently supplied. even in our mass vaccination

sites, they can gear up to a much larger amount. we just don't have those amounts coming in for san francisco at this point in time. and then in this slide, the vaccine sites, you've heard about the high-volume sites and city college is under way. another got announced today and we are still working with the produce market and the bayview to get that site up and running in partnership with our health care partners. we also have our health network sites that are vaccinating in the western edition, chinatown, other neighborhoods. additionally we have specific neighborhood sites through safeway and the 24th and cap initiative to do vaccination. and we have community sites with our other partners such as chinese hospital and our consortium clinics to provide

vaccine. finally obviously the big health care systems are also getting vaccine and providing vaccine through their allocations. i'm going to turn it over to director carroll to talk a little bit about the high volume sites since that's been a really major accomplishment that's been done through director carroll's oversight. >> thank you, dr. baba. our three sites, city college and fs produce market, were specifically chosen to be in geographically areas of the city where we are seeing a pre-dominance of the disease within those particular communities for ease of access.

the sf produce market will be a drive through or walk to but walk-in site. the mocsony center south, which as i speak downstairs it is being announced will be a very significant site centrally located obviously in the city. it's a consortium of health care providers that led by kaiser permanente. overly the sites, these sites collectively will alone have the ability to serve well over 10,000 people a day capacity-wise once we have the availability of vaccine to do so. and so that allows us to have an outlet for general public and people in these neighborhoods to have access to the sites, and in

general we also are trying to diversify for some people especially for some people who are older, have mobility, if they have a vehicle, a drive-through site is helpful. obviously many people in san francisco do not have vehicles, and so these other sites are also located in areas where there is mass transit, mass kony being one of them. the sf produce site is a very good site for particular populations, for instance people who work in restaurant and ag come through that area for -- at all hours, and we're trying to adjust our hours for those sites. so that's really the high volume site, an ability for us to push out vaccine quickly. two different populations in different ways that will work. and that is obviously complementary to the other sites that dr. bobba is talking about

that have a different strategy targeting different folks for different reasons. >> thank you, director carroll. i'll talk a little bit about the community vaccine sites. these vaccine sites, we learn a lot through community testing how, you know, community sites should work, and so the community vaccine sites are really for the community, and before announcing them to the broader public, we would want to ensure that, in fact, the community that we are partnering with would want that. for testing, it meant a lot more them that we hold off on those broad announcements because they want to make sure, as we did, that the community that is surrounding those sites is actually served. so this will be on ongoing discussion, but we feel it's really necessary especially when the vaccine is in short supply that the most vulnerable populations in a specific geographic area actually have

supply of the vaccine that we're putting in these community sites. next slide. so the selection of a site is -- it's informed by a couple different things. illustrate has to be in alignment with our d.p.h. vaccine strategy which includes both speed as well as equity and reaching target populations. we're prioritizing it in highly impacted san francisco neighborhoods and populations. locating vaccine resources in places that have been disproportionately or has proportionately carried the burden of the covid-19 case rates and infection rates, including hospitalizations and deaths, and that's by far the southeast sector of this city. we need to ensure once we put these sites up that there will be a daily and weekly capacity that can be maintained and that there will not be ongoing inventories. we want shots in arms as quickly as possible. and a commitment that it is a sustainable site and that it

will be open to the general population. once supply is readily available, we anticipation that the combination of high volume sites, community sites and pharmacies will help to really get vaccine out, and then the other strategy is we also are developing our mobile vaccine so that those that have access and functional issues will also be addressed as well. in terms of there has been some discussion about co-locating vaccination sites with testing sites, and we are definitely lacking at that, but not all testing sites can be converted to vaccine sites. there's a lot of requirements around the vaccine, including cold storage requirements, general logistical requirements, the fact that people have to wait 15 minutes after getting the vaccine and be monitored, and you need all the staffing support to do that monitoring and allow for the throughput, as

well as the medical equipment on site. so again we're working with our community partners to identify places and sites that would best work for the community given all these logistic needs. next slide. i know this slide has been presented in previous hearings, and the reason we're bringing it is just wanted to clarify a little bit about how d.p.h. receives allocations, and so we had talked about how the federal government allocates and then how the state allocates at previous hearings, but specifically in terms of allocation that d.p.h. gets, we are given -- and it happens usually tuesday nights we get an allocation amount from the state, and we are required by thursday to say we going to take that full allocation amount. it is not asking for a amount of vaccine, it is being told how much vaccine we have available to us, and then it is up to us if we want to order the full amount or not.

we have always ordered the full amount, and any time there is a possibility of being put on a waiting list, we have done so, and in fact we are on a waiting list for over 30,000 vaccines at this point in time, but we have ne'er turned down vaccine, and then once d.p.h. gets its allocation, then we have to provide it out to other health care partners, and these are outside of, you know, the major health care system. so our consortium clinics, which serve a very vulnerable population, our own d.p.o. safety net clinics, chinese hospital and any other clinics that, you though, would need tep in time and where things are at is what we would and are allocating to. so i just wanted to provide that clarification. next slide. and then finally the data. so we are working very hard to get more data into the system and up and running for the public to see. we want to minimize uncertainty

and help people feel confident about the vaccine and how the process is working. we are working on breaking down vaccination data by race, ethnicity, age and neighborhood of residents, and we plan to share data on the number of vaccines received and administered by the health systems, although our own d.p.h. vaccine allocation, how that gets allocated out. it is important that the data really truly reflect what is happening, and so there is -- it takes some time to collect and clean the data, and we want to make sure that what we're providing is accurate, but also timely. and then finally in terms of the vaccines planned, you can go to the sf website and see the plan. we were required early on to put a plan to the state, and the plan was how will we reach the workforce and vulnerable populations, including how we intend to outreach and what the

subsequent needs will be in ongoing phases. [please stand by]

>> supervisor haney, questions? >> yes, thank you both for the presentation and for the update, and again we are making some progress on -- have commitments on some of the things in the legislation which i really do appreciate. i have a couple questions before i ask any questions about the plan on some specific things. the first is on the registration site, so i was really excited to see that go up today, and i think people have been asking for it and again it's something that a lot of other counties have. one of the things that's different about our site and i wonder if there's a plan to change this is that it doesn't have all of the available

locations where people can access vaccines on the site. it's only i believe three of the san francisco state one, college one and mocsony and it doesn't have information about other sites. what a lot of other counties are doing is they have available places you can get vaccine, even on a map, and you can click on it and it will help a decentralized location to find the many options that exist, whereas ours doesn't have that, and they also -- it seems like even for our own sites we are using different registration systems. is all of that going to change? are you going to have a place where everything is put, and what is our plan for registration systems in terms of appointments? looks like we're using the state system for the mocsone site and an outside system for the safeway site, and eventbrite for

the ucsf city college site. it's a bit messy. >> yeah, i can answer and director carroll, if you have anything to say. so we are working on a centralized system. i think one of the things as you've alluded to, supervisor haney, is the state is also working on a system too. we really are looking for a system that will have multiple language capacity and capabilities, knowing the diversity in san francisco, and so that is actually going through process. we had to do a short r.f.p. on it, but the hope is ho get that up and running quickly so we can really address the need. now in terms of the health care system and if they will opt in, that's still an ongoing discussion into this centralized portal, but we are hoping given the fact that it has a lot of capacity and capability in terms of language that it will be the one that gets utilized for the entire city. and then in terms of, you know, sites, yes, we always want to try to update and include other

places that people can get vaccinated, but we also want to be mindful, like i said, of there are places in the city that we really want to have a very targeted approach, that that specific neighborhood actually gets vaccinated as opposed to everybody in the city coming in to try to get vaccine at a specific site, and i think these are specifically in areas that have been underserved, and so there is a balance there. but for, you know, the sites that are meant to be much more public facing, we are getting towards getting those up and running in the sites. >> yeah, because i know there's the my turn system which seemed like we're using for mocsone but not for other sites, and it's just -- again, it can sort of feel like a mad scramble in the sense of all of these links are living in different places and it's making -- it is causing a lot of confusion right now. i think particularly before we even had the site that went up today. and then are we using the

outreach that is -- how are we using the outreach that was made possible by the text notifications and the signup? like for example i know there was a site that was specifically targeted for certain zip codes. is everyone who got -- who signed up for that notification system who hauz eligible, who lives in that zip code, receiving a text message to go and sign up? how are we actually utilizing that system to help get people appointments now? because a lot of people signed up for that. i know we have over 100,000 people on that notification system and a lot of them are saying haven't heard anything since. >> so i think we are working with digital services on how to notify the people that are eligible that this site is up and running now and that they

could potentially go to the website and be able to sign up. you were talking about for the eligible population, correct? >> yeah. and also using it -- seems like it's a good tool for us to target as well in the sense that if somebody signed up and lived in certain zip codes where we are wanting to -- where we have sites where we're targeting those zip codes, it would target using this vaccine notification system. so i don't think -- it's my understanding that it hasn't happened yet, but i'm glad that that sounds like it's something that's a part of the plan. one of the things about this legislation is having us do a lot of the things that we are asking the most -- entities to do, particularly around the health order that came out around equity and their plan. have all of the multi-county entities complied with the health order and with the plan they were required to submit be

shared publicly? >> was somebody going to chime in? all right. i will say that i know that those plans were due i think this week and so we're taking stock of who has submitted. my understanding is that definitely our network has submitted, and some of the other entities have was the last update i have, but i can't remember the legislation that said it was going to -- or the health order that was going to be done publicly, so i'll have to check back in on that. but i do think that if they aren't that we can figure out a way to at least inform the public of what the general plans are for these health care systems. >> got it, yeah. that would be very good to know. on the data, you know, i'm -- when we had the hearing a couple of weeks ago, we were told that there was going to be additional data added to the dashboard, and that still hasn't happened, you

know, i know you just noted the percentage of the doses that we received that we have administered, even something as simple as that is not up on the dashboard, people cannot see the number of doses that we've received and who has received them, and again the disaggregation of data by race and by neighborhood is something that a number of other counties have. is there a timeline of when we would be able to have that data made public or shared? people act as a -- how many vaccine doses have san franciscans received, and we don't have that information as supervisors. >> yeah, and my understanding is the data that we shared in terms of how many have we received and what percentage have gone into arms and what percentage are allocated for second doses or appointments this week is something that is very close to happening, so my understanding is hopefully in the next week or so that that would go up.

i think the race ethnicity data is a little bit harder because i believe that's actually coming out of the kaerz data as well as some direct feeds to us, so it's a bit more complicated, but i know the team is working very quickly as well, very hard to try to get that data up and running as quickly as possible too. >> thank you. i think all of that is very important for us to track how it's doing and if there are populations we are not reaching and if we target our plan accordingly. i have no sense of is in anybody in the tenderloin having access to vaccine? if so how? i mean i don't know if we are tracking that and making that public similar to what we did with cases and testing i think is very important. on the doses, so we get our notification of -- from the state usually on a tuesday of how many doses we are going to receive the next week, or are they giving us greater notice, you know, the federal government

made this big splash about how they're going to give everyone three weeks notice so that we can plan ahead. does that allow the state to give us three week notice or they are still giving us one week notice? >> it is less than a week. we get late tuesday night, and we have to put the order in by thursday and the earliest we get it would be by monday, so it's less than a week that we have to plan for it. and i actually haven't heard that there's that changing any time soon. our understanding is that this is how it's flowing it from the federal government to the state. >> that seems to be a -- yeah, that seems to be a problem because part of what they are saying at the federal level is that we should now be able to plan, as you know, at least three weeks ahead so that -- and again, i now watch their briefings every morning so that i understand what they are saying. and you know, dr. fauci is saying, actually, that we shouldn't be holding back second

doses because we should have the understanding of -- well, you should -- we shouldn't be holding them back one to one at least because we should have the understanding of what we're going to get three weeks out. has anything in that regard changed? are we holding back a second dose for every dose that we administer? what is our policy specifically on that now? >> we are trying to get shots into arms. the state had come out with an early recommendation to use 50% of your second doses, but i will say this is a tricky game because it's not necessarily that you are going to get those second doses, and i know some counties have struggled with that, where potentially they have not gotten their second doses, so there's a little bit of a balance here. we are incuring a debt now by doing that and hoping it gets repaid in the phonetics few weeks, and -- in the next few weeks, and we don't have that forecast yet, so it is a week-by-week, but hopefully that will change. again, we need to be careful because the last thing we want to do is in three weeks say, you

know, we don't have your second dose, i'm sorry. part of that is building the public trust, right, that we are on top of it, that the systems will continue to work appropriately. so i think every county is working on this and trying to figure this out, but i agree, you know, hopefully the federal government will move to a three-week forecast because that will really make things much more easy to plan. >> absolutely. thank you for that update. there's a couple more quick questions and then i'll pass it back to the president. the governor announced a shifting vaccine priority guideline to an age-based system. that has created a lot of confusion and conternation and concern, particularly among essential workers who previously understood that they would be prioritized regardless of age. how does this shift in the state guidelines affect who we

prioritize and plan to prioritize and how we are determining that? there seems to me to be a lot of -- i've had a hard time getting an answer on this in terms of when and how we will move to the next priorities and who decides that and what exactly the priorities are now after the governor just kind of blew up the whole thing, it seemed, last week. can you help -- what are we supposed to tell someone who is younger and an essential worker who thought they were previously prioritized and now are totally unclear? >> yeah, it's a great question. i mean, so right now we're doing the health care workers in phase 1a, and then we're doing the over 65, and then after that, the expectation is the next set of people would be the essential workers in that phase 1b tier one. so it would be the child care, the educators, the first

responders and food and agriculture. beyond that, i don't know what's happening at the state level, and we're waiting for that guidance. we are at phase 1a and over 65 because we haven't gotten enough vaccine to even vaccinate that pool of people, and one of the reasons why the over 65 is so important is because they make up most of our deaths as well as our hospitalizations, so getting that group vaccinated really will protect our health care system. and as we reopen and there's more kind of, you know, people moving around, we want to prevent another surge. so that is i think one of the strategies that most of the counties are really behind, of vaccinating kind of the people most vulnerable for getting hospitalized, are dying, so we can continue to safely reopen and have less pressure on the hospital systems. as you know, that's kind of been what's really tied us in terms of -- specifically if our hospitalization rates go up,

that makes reopening much harder, and we actually end up having to move back. so i think that might have been the reason why the 65 and older were prioritized, but the next set is the essential workers. beyond that, we're still waiting for guidance. >> so just to -- just so i'm here, so does the state actually tell us the point at which we can move on to anyone who is not a health care worker or 65 plus, or is that a decision that we make ourselves based on everyone who at 65 plus having been offered the vaccine? i'm still a little unclear about how the process of moving on is. >> it is -- it's a combination, so we can't go ahead beyond what the state has said, but the state has said if you feel comfortable that you've gotten through a certain percentage, and they don't say which percentage, but if you've gotten through a number of your phase 1a and over 65 you can move on

to the next groups. i think for us we know in san francisco that we have vaccinated about 21% of the over 65, and that right now is probably not enough coverage to really ensure that we're protecting that vulnerable population. but it's not a -- you know, it's not a hard we have to get to 100% before you move on to another, right? there's a little bit of a balance. it's the same with phase 1a. we have not gone through completely phase 1a before we open it up to over 65. as vaccine becomes more available, as appointments start to open up and they are not getting filled with over 65-year-olds, we can start making those shifts, but we're just not there yet. >> that makes some sense. so it seems to be at some level of discretion based on how we do. it's not the state tells you, okay, now you can move on to 1b. i want to just ask also about a specific population that i think has been sort of lost now in the

state's priority and that i hope we can keep an eye on in terms of how we're going to support, and that's people who are under 65 who are physically or medically vulnerable for other reasons, people who may be disabled, people who may have h.i.v. or cancer, people who are -- there are people who i think that we may want to have access to the vaccines that it seems now it's not clear where they fall the the state tier. what are we telling those people and what -- you know, they're not necessarily essential workers in 1b, so when will they have access to the vaccine if you're 50 years old and have h.i.v., for example? >> yeah, that's a great point. that actually is something the state has brought up as potentially one of the changes that they want to make to their guidelines. it is really prioritizing people with co-morbidities that put them at risk for covid. so we are waiting for that guidance, but i think the state

will likely, you know, come out with something about that that, you know, hopefully suits. >> so i would say that one of the challenges that we have right now that can be a part of our communications plan is people who are having a hard time getting any sort of answers, feel very much unclear about which tier or priority they fall into and, you know, it just -- in some cases these are very vulnerable people, and we really have to be there to support them. i hope we can have dual -- i know these thengs are shifting, but whatever answers we can provide people, a question i've also gotten a lot for the food workers who are in the next tier, does that include restaurant workers and chefs and cooks who we know are some of the most highly impacted? >> that's my understanding that they would be included in that, grocery store workers, restaurant workers, yeah, is my

understanding. >> and we will make the decision based on when we feel we've done enough of a job with the 65 plus to move on to that group next, but beyond that we don't know yet. beyond that, for example, if you aren't in -- if you aren't an essential worker that's in that category, for example, if you are a sanitation worker, it's really drk and you're 40 years old and you're cleaning the streets, right now it's very unclear where you fall, right? i mean, they haven't all -- because they have blown up this system basically and made it an age-based system beyond that relatively narrow category of essential workers. >> yes, that's correct, and i would just add, it is -- the essential worker category, and then as you said, the medically vulnerable, and then also this equity issue is something the state is looking at in terms of, you know, potentially prioritizing places that have had higher case rates.

so all of those three things, i think it's hard because it's very complicated and that may be why it's taking the state a little bit of time to tli through it, and then we just don't even have vaccine for this full initial phase 1b, but the hope is and we keep hearing there will be an announcement hopefully in the next week or two about what this will look like. >> great. well, i will just say a last thing and then turn it back over to you. i appreciate the committee for allowing me to ask these questions and for these answers. they have been really helpful. i looked at the plan originally written a number of weeks ago. i do think that we need a new updated plan that is more accessible for people that has more details that include where things are now, including these new sites that we've opened. i get a lot of questions, when is there going to be a tenderloin site. that's very important. what are the timelines for opening a digital community site? i know that reaching really disparately impacted communities like the mission and bayview is

so important, and what organizations are we working with there to expand access, you know? i'm excited about some of these community sites that have opened, but i know and thank you to the team of task force for their leadership on that, the mission site, the question is also how do we get into a scale where we're really reaching the need in that community. my understanding was just a couple hundred were able to be done and we need a lot more vaccines going there. that scale of it, and i do think that all of the things in the legislation are things that we feel are doable and some of which i know you're planning, and i'm very happy to see that, and i hope that ultimately this gets to, you know, a level of transparency and accountability and access that all of us are really working towards, and again, i thank you both for your leadership and our hardwork and your respective teams, and it is much appreciated. thank you, chair preston.

i'm done. >> thank you, supervisor haney. and i have a few questions that i know other committee members do as well. i just wanted to start to follow up on supervisor haney's questions, some of the responses, dr. bobba, were about what you were expecting or awaiting from the state. can you shed some light for us on what our actual role is on some of these? like, are we -- are we as a city actively advocating, for example, for the inclusion and prioritization of people with co-morbidities, disabilities? it's encouraging that we're expecting something from the state, but it just -- any clarity on what role the city is actually playing in the state discussion would be great. >> yeah, and i can talk at it from the department of public health side. the state definitely wants our input and does hold calls where they talk about these issues, and you know, from the

department's perspective, specifically around the equity issue, that's been something that we've been very clear about that, you know, that there needs to be a focus also on vaccinating those places that have been hardest hit and that -- disproportional impacts. so we continue to advocate for that, and that would include people that have co-morbidities and disabilities, potentially, in those hardest-hit areas. that is an ongoing dialogue, and the state department of public health is open to receiving that kind of input. >> and is that the same with i think the board's made clear our interest in educators and school staff being as high as possible in the prioritization. is that also being advocated for on those calls and when d.p.h. is engaging in these issues with the state? >> yeah, and so the educators and child care workers and food

and ag workers and first responders, that is -- that will be the next group that goes. that's already been decided. >> great. thank you. switching gears a little, you mentioned the outreach plan, and i don't know if this is for director carroll or for dr. bobba. i just want to observe that -- you know, i think early on during shelter in place the city did a really strong job around the -- looking sort of not at the online communications and digital communications but the actual fly ring, you know, the door hangers, the postings in neighborhoods, that really were everywhere, at least in my district, and really i think made a strong statement early on

in the pandemic. i have not really seen that in the same way as rules have changed, and so a lot of folks were sort of unaware of the shifting rules around, you know, restaurants, around other things. there hasn't been as visible an offline communications plan or presence, and i -- i'm curious if there's anything planned specifically around door hangers, posting of flyers and/or mailings in connection specifically with information about vaccination, where people can do and how they can get information -- where people can go and how they can get information. >> yes, thank you, supervisor. absolutely. we still have our teams together to do outreach. much of, you know, right now we

do not have consistent and secure information to get out to people, so as soon as we have more clarity around who and what and when, how, we will be getting our teams out there and have the collateral to put that out. but as you can imagine, right now things are changing definitely on a weekly if not a daily basis. but i think to your point, we know how to do it. we have the experience and the teams to do it. we can get it out. we have our -- you know, we can translate things. we have -- we do everything here from the content generation to the translation to the production and the boots on the ground, so it's absolutely part of our plan moving forward, and in addition, you know, we anticipate hopefully that we are

going to be continuing to be able to expand wreepgs, and as we expand reopening, we want people to understand what the expansion means for businesses and for the public, and thirdly really making sure that people understand that we have to continue to do so safely if we want to continue to keep our numbers down. so that's all to say we will continue to do what we've been doing from the beginning. we just -- you know, you've got to have the clear, correct accurate information before we put it out to the public. >> thank you, and just i guess my two cents on that, and i do understand that there's -- you want that clear communication. there is a tension with

communicating quickly and proactively with trying to get things get more settled, and my concern just on that front is that the lack of communication can really breed a lot of misinformation, and i think even if it's before things are settled, even just to get something out that directs people to the right site, even if that site is evolving, i just want to reiterate, and kudos to whoever did the design work on the door hangers, you know, sometimes when government gets out the word we don't always do it in the best way, those were very simple. they didn't need to have all the answers. it made a statement, and you saw them everywhere. you know, they were posted on -- posted throughout the neighborhood, hangers all over, and there are so many questions we're all getting around vaccination that i guess i would urge this impossible that we not await all that clarity, because i imagine things are going to be changing a lot. you know, it's not all going to be resolved next week, right,

and just the sooner the better from this one supervisor's perspective on that front. a couple other questions and then i see supervisor mandelman has some questions as well. i have had some inquiries about immigration status and eligibility and wanted to know if you could clarify in particular whether folks who are undocumented are eligible and if so where. >> yeah, they are eligible to get vaccinated and they would be eligible at any of the mass public sites, any of our community health clinics, at any of our safety net clinics. they should be able to get vaccinated. >> great. thank you for clarifying that. also on prioritization and you talked about geographical parts of the city, i'm curious how vulnerability factors in as

distinct from prevalence of cases. as you know, my district includes a large african-american population in and around the fillmore and also a huge concentration of seniors, both in the lesser edition and japantown. fortunately we have not seen the large outbreaks that those communities have experienced in other parts of the country and other parts of the city, but obviously we will want to act proactively. i note that the zip codes that are targeted do not include any of the zip codes in my district that i'm referring to, so how does the prioritization factor in vulnerability when looking at geography as distinct from where the cases are high? >> so in terms of one of the things is that our safety net clinics are spread across the

city, and maxine hall was actually one of the first clinics to get vaccine and start vaccinating, so you're completely right. it's not just about the location. and truly the people over 75, 80 that we need to vaccinate as soon as possible are all vulnerable. some have more access than others, but we are spread across the city and in all different districts, and so it is working with our health care providers. like i said, d.p.h. gets an allocation and then we allocate out to health care providers, small local health care providers specifically in chinatown, in western edition, fillmore, places where we know that they will be reaching a highly vulnerable population, we are prioritizing them for allocations as well. >> and other than maxine, what can you clarify about who's eligible at maxime hall on other

resources, other mobile pop-ups or more permanent sites are planned for western edition and japantown? >> so right now the health network is doing its population which is, again, the safety net population, but as soon as they get to a certain percentage, the likelihood that they will be able to open it up to other vulnerable populations, and we can check back and see where they are in terms of maxine hall in terms of getting to those numbers. in addition, the cds and other site will also have capacity to vaccinate. those would be other resources and places, and again we're working very closely with our neighborhood and equity branch and community partners to identify places where it would be really important that we either stand up a community site or have some type of global capacity. >> thank you very much. supervisor mandelman? >> thank you, chair preston.

and thank you director carroll and dr. bobba. i want to begin by just, you know, expressing deep and profound gratitude for all the work that covid command and d.p.h. are doing and have done over the past year. like each and every one of my colleagues, i have been hearing a massive amount of anxiety, confusion, consternation and upset. i have shared that frustration as i have watched our website and communications gradually sort of incorporate new elements that make it more user friendly but haven't quite, you know, i would agree, gotten there. i think it's important to remember that it is much easier to spot problems than to fix them, and you have not only 11

supervisors peering over your shoulders but 800,000 san franciscans as well, and we're all screaming at you to move faster, smarter and better, and thank you for, notwithstanding that, still moving faster, smarter and better. and we're not there, the country's not there, but i impressed and grateful on a regular basis for the work that you all are doing. so with that little love fest to the side, a few -- just a few observations. perhaps helpful criticism. i do think that the communications continue to need improvement, as has been pointed out. i think the website being unveiled today is a big positive step. we did a town hall, working with

d.p.h., i think it was earlier this week, and even then, i mean, the sort of confusion -- the sort of core request was an easy way to sign up, which seems like we're getting closer, but just sort of even then we were not entirely sure what we were communicating. i know this is getting better and this website feels much closer to what we need, but still needs i think more work. i do think our notification system, i hope it is providing the information that supervisor haney has indicated and that at some point we will figure out how to use some of that. for the moment it has been more -- i mean, again, not to pile on, but i do think it has generated more confusion in some ways than actual help, because if you are over 65 and you signed up for a notification whether you're eligible, you're

eligible but you still can't get it or haven't been able to get it reliably or easy to this point. i think when people do that they are expecting more than the city has been able to give them, and that's been frustrating. so if we're at least able to use that information positively, that would be a great thing. and i do also think, and i'm not totally clear other than the volume on y'all is so great, that the information we're comparing to what we're receiving to what we're giving out is helpful, and that's something that i've asked for for a while, and i understand it takes a while, but -- and it seems like it shouldn't be so hard on the d.p.h. side of things. in fact, dr. bobba provided that information today, at least in terms of 62%, but that's not on the website and might be a thing as you continue to update that website that would be interesting for people to see. are we able at this point to know that for our non-public

providers, what's received versus what's given, or is that too much of a mess? i know at one point the doses were being received by kaiser regionally, by sutter regionally and piecing apart what was available in san francisco was pretty hard. are we any closer to that? are we ever going to be able to know how much is available for distribution in san francisco? >> yeah, we've made a lot of strides. i don't know. i have to check and see if all the health care systems are reporting, but a lot of them are. so yes, and so hopefully we can get to a place where, like i said, in the very near future we can talk about how much -- how many doses have been received within the city and then how many have been given out for that comparison specifically. >> okay, great. well, again, i'd asked for it been before and i know it's one of the gazillion things you have to do, but i think that would be both on the public side ant on the private side information

that people would at least find useful. so in somebody's free time, if they could make that happen, that would be really great. i'm curious about the supply situation because it says, you know, the ordinance before us anticipates a potential rapid increase in supply. you all are planning for an increase in supply. is there reason for us to believe there's an increase in supply coming and when -- like, do we think that -- is it that we are waiting on j & j? do we have any i see have -- visibility on when things might loosen up a bit, or are we just going to be kind of pulling our hair out, hah, you know, until june? >> i don't have any insider information. i probably read the same news stories that you do. i hear about an increase in production and some of the other

candidates, that they will get approved in the next month, which will then hopefully just open up the number of vaccines that are eligible for people to get vaccinated with. but other than that, i don't have any further information of when actually we will get that increased supply. >> in terms of we and our private partners are receiving, is that increasing week to week or is that some weeks it's more some weeks it's less? >> it's been variable. so yes, it's not increasing, and it's interesting, there are some weeks that dph gets more and others get less, so it is not stabilized at all. >> okay. and do we have anied in how much vaccine will be going to the pharmacies and what that will do? i mean, this new sort of initiative, which i think you said is happening in the next couple of weeks, to get cvs or safeway or walgreens, you know, a little bit more like we did

the flu, except it will have to follow the groups. we don't know how much vaccine is going to be available for that program and what it will mean for san franciscans at this point? >> yes. yeah, we heard i think it's going to include about 100 pharmacies across california, so you know, the number in san francisco probably won't be a huge number to start with. >> one or two or five, whatever, something small. okay, and you'd said that we're -- and we have said, and the issue that i'm now telling everyone this, the issue is not our infrastructure, although we need to set that up, but it's the lack of doses. it's the lack of supply. do we have the staffing? i mean, do we have in place what would need to be in place actually if we had 10,000 doses a day? is there going to be a point at which we actually do have some other constraints on our ability to deliver those? right now we don't because we

don't have that, but are we going to have that staffing problem at some point? in a good world where we actually do get supply? >> director, i don't know if you want to talk about the mass sites, but we are getting flooded by people who want to volunteer. i anticipate it will be okay, but director carroll, i don't know if you wanted to say more. >> yeah, thank you, supervisor mandelman. we feel very confident that we -- i mean, we are not setting up sites that we can't operate, so some of our sites are -- all the sites are structured slightly different in the sense of who's staffing them. for example, the site here at mocsone south is really a kaiser-run site. they are coordinating all of the services through -- you know, they sort of own and lead the

site and we provide outside support and just general city support or services that they might need. city college is much more of a city-owned fifty-fifty shared site with ucsf and potential other partners. so there is no reason that we can't -- that we cannot put as much vaccine as we get into people's arms here. our goal -- our stated goal by d.p.h. is 10,000 a day, but the structure -- i mean, the operation and the structure that we built can accommodate a higher number than that. >> you think we have the workforce for that, we or our private providers have the workforce to be able to do that? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay, that's good. >> another issue, i want to talk about the vaccine plan and the ordinance itself, but last question before we get there, i think there is this notion that people see other counties doing things -- and we've had this since december.

people read in the paper that somebody is getting a vaccine at a hospital in freemont or hayward, and then we find out, you know, a week later that they shouldn't have been and that hospital is not going to be getting any more vaccines, but people are seeing a lot of stuff going on in a lot of places, and inherently because human beings are like this, we are comparing how we are doing to how other places are doing. can you address that in any sense how you feel san francisco is doing relative to -- how are you thinking about whether we're keeping up in the joneses? >> i think that, you know, yes, we definitely had to build the infrastructure, but now that it's been built we are very confident that we are getting doses out as quickly as possible, and you know, given that san francisco has a very large health care workforce and it was a really big, you know,

group of people that has -- yeah, it was a huge list, thank you. that had to get vaccinated, the estimate is that we were potentially 80% through that, and you know, we're 20% through the over 65, so we're making huge strides here in terms of getting through the populations as quickly as possible. i think some of these mass vax sites can help, you know, first of all get people to one place to get vaccinated, so that there's clear communication, but then also get through the population as quickly as possible, and then our responsibility really will be for the people, again, that can't access a site, that have access functional needs and other reasons to not access it and have the community-based clinics as a supplement. >> all right, let's talk about the ordinance and the plan itself. [please stand by].

>> supervisor mandelman: i have been troubled by those instances where we have passed ordinances requiring things to happen, and the executive responsible for implementing those things has not done them,

either because it -- often, you know, telegraphing or saying to us quite plainly we can't or it would be government malpractice for us to do. we're not going to do what you want us to, board of supervisors. that's a bad formula all-around. it's a bad formula for me as a legislator. when i pass things, i want the board to do them, and it puts us in a rough place of not following the law. you say you have a plan, you have a law requiring you to do these things within seven days. i want to understand, you know, before we vote on this as a full board, are the things in this ordinance that you can do? if there's not things, what are those things? is there anything that's

problematic or is this, like, a reach but we agree that these are things we ought to be monitoring, but we think we can comply on this, but even if we can't get it done within seven days, we're going to get it done, yes. can you talk about the applicability of this ordinance? >> yeah. i think i would say that the most part, we do want to, you know, follow the legislation in the ordinance. some of it will be time constraints specifically around the data, but i think even with that, if we're not able to do it within seven days, we want to be able to do it overall, and it is just trying to have the number of people that are working on this be able to prioritize all of these things,

so i would say that is one of the only things that come to mind? you can see by all the data on there the team has been working extremely hard to get all the data available to the public, and the vaccine data will get there, as well. it just might take more time than seven days. >> supervisor mandelman: well, i would encourage you, if you feel like there are parts of this mandate that need to change, that you work with the author to identify things where you may need additional time because i want us to move toward the point where we're actually getting our mandates consistent with what's feasible, so thank you. >> yeah, and director carroll, did you want to have anything to add about the ordinance? >> yeah. i think beyond the data, which i think is probably the most complicated, we are already doing most of what's in this ordinance, so i feel it's very comfortable with it.

>> supervisor mandelman: great. thank you. >> chair preston: thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor chan? >> commissioner chan: thank you, chair preston, and, i guess, good afternoon now. and i think my question is -- not too sure who can answer this question specifically. it is about capacity. i do understand the limitation of supplies that we've been facing, so it's kind of why we're in this pickle. i heard you. i know that the message is that we have the infrastructure there, it's ready to go, but it's really the supplies. so just in the spirits of trying to understand based on this legislation that we are trying to figure out, especially on page 7, lanes 15, talking about, you know,

informations about the public that has been put forward and expectant dates that each community can expect to be vaccinated. according to your dashboard, you're thinking about 753,000 people, roughly, right, to be vaccinated in san francisco, but to date, you know, 75,000 have received the first dose, and only about 25,000 have received the two doses. so the question would be if we -- if our -- if our -- if our goal is, by june, that all these people will be vaccinated, at which point -- and we're going to pace that as

we currently exist, and i'm just showing what you currently list on the dashboard. by june, if we're only vaccinating 75,000 people a month -- by june, if the situation with supplies don't change, because we're only going forward with what we receive. so if this pace consists throughout the coming months, that means by june, we'll only vaccinate about 300,000 people. so at which point will the city go, by june, we're not going to meet these goals to being have a seenate the entire city. we need to adjust -- i'm not talking about the entire -- to vaccinate the entire city. we need to adjust because we're not going to be able to vaccinate the entire

population. you know, is it school, is it our health care facilities, just skilled nursing homes, be it indoor dining or outdoor dining, so at which point will, you know, we're just not going to meet this goal, you know, in the coming months? >> yeah, and i will say, you know, those earlier comments around a june date will really about, you know, if we got enough vaccine such that we were getting to 10,000 to 12,000 a day, but we know that that's not changed in the last three weeks, and it's unlikely to change in the near future. so supervisor haney, you're absolutely right, and we have to say that we're only on this tier because we have to make a significant dent in the tier to ensure that the over 65 are well protected and then move

onto this next tier, so we're going to have to do a tier by tier basis. it's very hard to do projections even among the tiers right now, given the kind of variable supply that everybody is receiving. so, you know, the hope is even if we don't get more supplies, that the supplies just stabilize so that we can project out and project forth. but until that happens, it's very hard to even do a projection because if one week, we get a couple thousand, and the following week, we get that much more, and the next week, we don't get more, that is where the challenge will be. >> i think if we just know as a city, that all parts, you know, we know that at some point, we are going to make a determine in march or april, the city, in two months' time, just not going to meet that goal to vaccinate the entire city, here's the back up plan.

here's the backup plan in terms of how do we make adjustments and how do we do this? i would consider you to, you know, think about that because i just think that allowing our communities to prepare for, you know, health order from the city according to how -- i'm assuming that certain aspects of our health order will be adjusted according to the population -- how many people have been vaccinated in our city. i think it will be really helpful for us, all of us to plan our lives during the pandemic, to have some kind of understanding, when june comes, you know, this is how we're going to live our lives, you know? and it will be really helpful by springtime or that we have some ideas, so i urge you to work to have some kind of projection. and i think the -- the -- that

this is the part where i'm trying to understand what kind of data exactly do we have because i do believe -- i do believe you are making a data driven decision to provide these neighborhood sites, and as a supervisor in the richmond, i think chair preston's sort of touch on that of representing a district where, you know, fortunately our transmission rate is not high, but that doesn't mean we don't need testing or vaccination. we still do. so the question is if we're not quite tracking -- or we're trying to residency, we're trying to track race and all that information just now, so we need to make the determination for those

neighborhood sites. because frankly, in district one, we're 40% chinese speaking, and in our residents, and we have high percentage of senior, and i'm just trying to understand, you know, if we're really -- if we do know who's getting vaccinated, and we understand the transmission rates and all that, then there would be no priority for vaccination or even in the richard monday. and i know we have testing now at safeway. like, it filled up within hours. like, i cannot even share it with my constituents in the first few hours. citywide, it's far from our constituents who are seniors. any way, i just want today put out there my -- wanted to put

out this my concern and that it's data driven and shots in arms, you know, referencing that with our most vulnerable population, i'm concerned is that actually happening in my district -- or on the west side, you know? so -- so, like, how do we know that? how do we have that information and how that's happening if we have no distribution site in the richmond? >> yeah, and i think that's one of the things that we're working on, to understand vaccination rates based on neighborhoods and zip codes. i can't give you an estimated date of when that will happen, but we are going to be working closely with. in addition, we are trying to provide clinics in the west side that have asked for allocation of vaccine so that they can reach the chinese

population that are elderly, absolutely. >> great. and i think one more, like, question, like, chair preston's question about immigrants in the region. it's all due to this ordinance, and i think, like, thanks to supervisor haney due to championing this because if we're tracking some information, you know, age and race, because then it will also help you to make sure that you focus your resources in your outreach to be able to say, you know what? like, we have a large chinese population vaccinated because you've been doing that in chinatown, and so we need to focus on russian speaking, you know, you know, and this age and this population of seniors 65 and over. so i just, again, think why

this time it's critical and just looking forward to seeing this plan realized and having this data available and also having all of our supervisors in our own districts, seeing our constituents and being asked these questions, and seeing this dashboard and being able to point you to our neighborhoods. i know i'm preaching to the choir. you already know that, but i just thought that be it the timing in terms of projection whether we can really meet our goal as well as just this data, why it's actually critical sooner rather than later. it will help all of us moving forward as we moving into -- from a cold weather into warmer weather, and people are going to be a lot more active when they're out and about, so thank you.

>> chair preston: thank you, vice chair chan, and supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, and i appreciate all of the comments and questions that were asked, and i did want to pick up just on that last point, which is so important in terms of how the data can be used. you know, if we are able to identify, for example, that we're not reaching certain targeted populations that are currently eligible for the vaccine, that allows us not just as supervisors but all our community organizations, networks, to be able to be mobilized to reach those folks. we obviously hope that, in the near future, when we get more supply, we will be able to focus not just on who can get those appointments but actually we're going to have to shift for that last, i imagine, you know, 30, 40% of the population, even among 65-plus that we need to really reach, and we need to go door to door,

and we need to have in-language outreach, all of that, correct any misinformation that may exist about the vaccine. so preparing to do that now is also really important because -- and this picks up on a point that supervisor preston made about the information that is out there. right now, on my elevator, in my hallway, there's a -- a flier that's there that's been there for months, and it has questions and answers. and, of course, one of the questions is, is there a vaccine, and it says no. all of that level of outreach needs to be updated, so having a centralized place that is going to be the same number, same site, that we can say right now is going to exist today all the way through the year and beyond, that we can begin to get out there and so everybody is signed up, and so we can be sure that if you do sign up, that is going to get you some information that is help and is key and put that all into a plan.

so i appreciate all of the things to work on in the legislation, and i understand that some of it is planned, and some of it may need to be prepared, but i think all of it will better help us understand how we can support and partner and ultimately deliver this more effectively with regards to our constituents. i hope this gives us an opportunity to sort of address that, and there are a number of things that you said that have happened since that plan has come about. one quick thing, our -- do our sites have a requirement that somebody lives in san francisco? are they for san francisco residents, or if you are 65 plus and not a san francisco resident, you can still access

the sites here? that's not entirely clear on the website, as i'm looking at them. >> so i can start on the mass vac sites, and dr. moss can answer on the d.p.h. side. what we know is there are many people who do not live in san francisco but get their health care here, so, you know, that was one of the things in the city college site, is we had people that were not san franciscans that are coming because they were called by ucsf, who is their primary health care provider. we are trying to address that where we have control of that situation, so here -- again, here at moscone, this is a kaiser site that is likely to

almost draw some regional participation just like at the site in el nida at the coliseum, or citizens that live in alameda county. we are definitely working with d.p.h. to funnel san francisco [inaudible]. >> so the community-based sites, we really do want them available for the community and to have that access for the community, so that's why there's really targeted outreach to either the patient population or the neighborhood as opposed to generating a mass e-mail that goes out to a lot of different people, so we're not saying that you have to have a san francisco address at

some of the more community based sites, but i think definitely where there are clinics, there is some request that it be, you know, based on a geographic zip code. i don't think anybody's checking, per se, but the outreach is being done in that way. >> supervisor haney: can i clarify, director, on the moscone site? so it is run by kaiser, but it's not only for kaiser patients, right? it's sort of insurance provider agnostic, is that correct, i would say? and then, if you live -- if you refer to it as a regional site, if you lived in san mateo, and you didn't get your health care via kaiser, could you go and make an appointment at the moscone site and receive your vaccine from the moscone site?

i understand that some people receive their health care in san francisco, but my ubdsing -- understanding is the moscone center is health care agnostic. >> yes, that's correct. so right now, in order to get a -- a -- an appointment here at moscone, you can go through the link that we provided or for the -- kaiser's putting out, and the requirement is only that you're 65 and over. there is not, at this point, to my knowledge -- unless this has changed in the hour and a half that i've been sitting here, it's not a residential -- it's not a san francisco required site to live in san francisco or get an appointment there. >> supervisor haney: and for that reason, i would just underscore this, that where we have a site, like, a website or a 311 or whatever it is, that a

san franciscan can call and get information about all of the sites that may be available to them, to get a vaccine, we not only not to include all of the ones in san francisco, we may need to include all the regional ones. because if the state or city is doing all the ones at the coliseum, and you can get there by b.a.r.t., we should let them know about that, and we have a responsibility to know about that. >> i agree with that, supervisor. >> i'm not saying -- i understand sort of the challenges, especially for kaiser, who's certainly people all over the bay area, they want to come to san francisco and get theirs here, and we're going to put a lot of energy and investment and time into that, we should also make sure that our folks have access to other opportunities around the region, as well. i really think it's important

that people can see all of the sites around them as available to as great extent as possible and make appointments around the site. we've begun to have something like that available for just these three sites, but that's obviously not the whole picture, still. so again, i -- i appreciate the progress that we are making, and i know this is very complicated, and there's federal and state and everything else, and limited supply. and i home that the data and all of this legislation can make us -- help empower us to be more supportive with the information, 'cause we're also on the frontlines of answering a lot of these questions from our constituents, and thank you again to the chair and to the committee and to both of you for being here. i know you have a lot going on, and i'm going to come down to moscone soon, so i'll see you soon maybe. thank you.

>> chair preston: thank you, supervisor haney. let's move to public comment. mr. clerk, do we have any public callers on the line? >> clerk: mr. tue, could you please let us know if there are any callers in the queue. for any callers on the line, press star, three to enter the queue to comment on the line. for those already in the queue, you will hear a prompt on the line that indicates your line has been unmuted. if you wish to call in, do so by following the instructions on your screen. dialing 455-655-0001. following that, you would enter the meeting i.d. for today's meeting, which is 146-469-4909. following that, you'd press the pound symbol twice and then press star, followed by three, to enter the queue to speak.

mr. tue, could you please connect us to our first caller. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lashawn walker, and i'm a resident of district 10. i'm also on the megablack covid-19 task force as well as a board member for the san francisco aids foundation. i want to say thank you to supervisor haney for your in-depth analysis and questions of the legislation, particularly related to comorbidities and the fact that there are lots of people in our communities who don't fit into the frequent categories in terms of priorities, and it is imperative -- specific categories in terms of

priorities, and it is imperative that we find their fit. supervisor preston, you are right on talking about the plan. it just seems that we're waiting and watching and this and that. i'm pressing all of you supervisors, not just this subcommittee, but the entire board, with the leadership of our mayor, to not just be waiting for vaccines and waiting for this and waiting for that, but taking a much more advocate position in demanding the kinds of things that we need, so i just appreciate, chair preston, for asking that question. lastly, i will say that with the mass vaccination sites, i

want to give a special shoutout to president walton. i hear this announcement about moscone coming on-line today, and i'm concerned because the san francisco produce market site had been announced previously, but it's not up and running. >> clerk: your time has concluded. thank you, lashawn walker, for sharing your comments. mr. tue, could you bring up the next caller, please. >> so supervisors, i want to -- i want you all to pay attention to a few pointers i'm going to be making. number one, when somebody talks about data, as you know, how many people in san francisco are asymptomatic. if above 50% are asymptomatic,

then we haven't done the testing. and i know we are last in the nation when it comes to testing. i know that for a fact. and when it comes to logistics, we need to rely or we need to consult fema. fema stands for the federal emergency management agency, and fema knows how to do it. san francisco has failed us. more importantly, all those jackasses at moscone east, they have [inaudible] us. i know that for a fact. why would they take people from the navigation to moscone and then, you know, after a few days, realize fundamentally,

they didn't even understand what the situation was? so we do not have data. we have some data that we just tally up. it's not data that's been vetted. we don't have the ability to discern. we don't have the ability to do a needs assessment. we have people that talk in circles. i took my vaccine today. i went to a location, they were very kind to me, most probably because they knew me. i gave them my i.d. i met all the requirements, and in 45 minutes -- >> clerk: thank you, mr. dacosta, for your comments. mr. tue, could you bring us the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is angela jeng, and i'm calling influenced by the

megablack's covid-19 task force. i'm urging the city to make the vaccine equitable so that our community gets access without red tape. i'm an african american. i'm also call on behalf of our unhoused black americans and those with mental health issues not be left out, so thank you again for raising this important issues. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. could we get the next caller, please. >> yes, good afternoon, supervisors, chair preston. john jacobo wearing two hats today. i'm calling on behalf of a small coalition, a small group here of affordable housing developers that have senior

housing facilities. we sent a letter this morning to dr. colfax because we want to understand better the strategy for the 90 buildings and the several thousand seniors that are in our facilities that need to be vaccinated. we want to know what the mobile vax unit will look like, how they will be taken care of, and how do we make sure we protect our seniors and most vulnerable, and so that letter will be forwarded to this committee, as well. separately, from the task force, seconding s.f. megablack comments. i want to make sure we have equitable distribution of this vaccine. we need it to come to the places that are hardest hit and make sure that we are prioritizing those that need the assistance and the most vulnerable. i thank you for calling this hearing, supervisor haney and the gang, and look forward to

rolling out with you the vaccine. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, mr. jacobo, and i look forward to you sending me the letter so i can include it in the file. mr. tue, next caller, please. >> operator: mr. chair, that completes the queue. >> chair preston: thank you, operations. thank you, mr. clerk. hearing no further callers, public comment is now closed. i did want to follow up specifically on one of the comments that was made as this was something that i had been meaning to ask, as well, on the comment mr. jacobo made around seniors and the plans for senior buildings in particular around mobile vaccination units. can either dr. baba or director carroll address that?

>> yeah, so i am happy to address that. so we are working on a mobile vaccination program that can go door to door. obviously, that's a huge lift. the vaccine is very fragile, so we have to make sure that everything is in place, but we are working to get that up and running and start working on that issue. >> chair preston: thank you very much, and just want to reiterate that that is a vulnerable population for whom going to sites is not an option for so many people, so looking forward to that plan being developed and prioritized as we start getting more supply. i see supervisor haney on the roster? >> supervisor haney: yes, and thank you for asking that question, as well. i just wanted to -- you know, we do have a lot of lack of clarity right now, and i know that some of this is being caused by the state. i mention that people with

comorbidities, also essential workers that are not in 1-b. i'm wondering whether -- how we are viewing that -- for example, people who are experiencing homelessness or living in more congregate situations, like s.r.o.s? what's your understanding of where they fall now or whether they would be the next group that we would prioritize after 65-plus? >> yeah, it's a great question, supervisor haney. after the workforce with the child care and the teachers and

food, the next tranche was going to be people experiencing homelessness and that population. that's not going to change, so they would be, you know, again, the following group after those essential workers, but as has been stated, things have been fluid? we do know it's an important nature because of the congregate nature of their situation to prioritize them and are working closely with our colleagues in the jail services and our hokelessness department to really have all those plans hammered out so that when they are up for vaccine, that there won't be any kind of delay in getting them vaccines. >> supervisor haney: great. and i know that the state announced that blue shield was going to take some sort of role

in coordinating at the state level. my understanding is they will directly distribute vaccines to smaller providers that potentially d.p.h. is currently now responsible for. is that something that would change the health departments role or how did that affect our responsibility in this process? >> yeah, it could definitely change our role. we are still waiting for details of what that's going to look like, with that third party administrator, but that is our understanding, that blue cross/blue shield would directly be receiving information from providers and responding? and part of it will also be based on the through-put at those sites, so i think there needs to be a balance because especially for our vulnerable

communities, there might not be a hub, but we still want them to get vaccines. we are still advocating that a certain amount comes to the local health departments. >> supervisor haney: okay. and last last question, director carroll, maybe you can answer this, if you're still there. for the moscone site, is kaiser providing the vaccine, and exactly what is our role at that site? >> yeah, i think that director carroll had to drop off. so it's my understanding that kaiser is getting the vaccine directly from the state, and so that is a state kind of kaiser -- a partnership. our role is really to work with

kaiser to ensure that san franciscans have access to the site and, you know, given that it's in our city, to make sure that, you know, all the safety recommendations, all the logistics are done in an appropriate manner. >> supervisor haney: all right. so they're getting the vaccine indirectly. we are helping to provide some of the logistics, the signage, the appointments, etc., but just so people are clear, that is a kaiser site essentially. >> correct. >> supervisor haney: okay. all right. thank you. i'm really done. >> chair preston: all right. thank you, supervisor haney, for bringing this to the board, and dr. baba, and even though

she's gone, director carroll. i just want to say thank you for taking time out of your work for being here in committee. i think in perhaps sharp contrasts to many jurisdictions around this country, we are all solidly working toward the same goal here. i think we are better for it when we push each other, and i think, supervisor haney, your leadership on this ordinance and pushing these issues has helped along with -- you know, with others, move things forward, and i just want to recognize, really, the professionalism of dr. bava and the team at d.p.h. as well as director carroll and the -- sorry. i think i just muted myself. recognize the professionalism in which you're carrying out this work and dealing with the board.

my office is not alone. i know you hear from all of us and our colleagues daily with questions from our constituents and are managing not just all the outreach to get the vaccine and the information out but also to answer questions, and we appreciate it very much. so thank you, again, for being here, and we will go ahead and -- i'd like to make a motion to refer -- sorry, just checking, making sure no further questions from my colleagues on the committee? great. seeing no further questions, i will go ahead and make a motion to refer this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee report for consideration on february 9. mr. clerk? >> clerk: on the motion offered by chair preston that this be recommended as a committee report -- [roll call]

>> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> chair preston: thank you, mr. clerk and supervisor haney. mr. clerk, do we have any further business before the committee? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> chair preston: thank you, colleagues. then we are adjourned. thank you.

. >> you're watching coping with covid-19 with chris manners. >> hi. i'm chris manners, and you're watching coping with covid-19. today, my guest is phil ginsburg. he's the director of the san francisco rec and parks, and he's a national rec and park ranger. thank you for being here. >> hi, chris. thank you for having me. >> i've heard you have an exciting new exhibit that features social distancing and is outside, so it's safer. can you tell us a little bit about it? >> the golden gate 50 anniversary wasn't the

celebration that we hoped for, but when life deals you lemons, you hope to make lemonade, and we tried to engage people in the park in different ways. behind me is what we did. it's a public exhibit which has transformed peacock meadows into an enchanted forest of other worldly shapes and lights. it's to close out golden gate park's 150 years and to allow people to have outdoors socially distant fun. >> great. and what are the hours, and when can people go see it, and

are there access for wheelchairs and strollers? >> well, it will run until february 27, and the ways are wheelchair accessible. it will close in time to make the city's curfew. we're not supposed to be gathering. we're not supposed to be celebrating out there, unfortunately. it is a beautiful exhibit and is one that can be seen from the sidewalk or you can wander into the meadow, but we ask that people be really mindful of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. the most important thing for us is to be safe and healthy. do not show up with other households. come and see it, get a little

taste of the holidays and leave so other people can enjoy it. if it's too crowded, comeback because it's going to be around for a while. >> how long does it take to walk around the exhibit? >> well, you could be there for five minutes or 15 minutes or longer if it's not crowded. it's about in an acre of meadow, but it's very visible even from a fully accessible sidewalk. you'll get a sense of it. basically, there are sculpted trees, and it's gorgeous. i got an opportunity to visit it over the weekend. the conservatory of flowers is

there, and then, we have our amazing spreckels temple of music which was recently renovated and lit up in lights. >> i have information that it was created by a local artist. what can you tell us about it? >> well, it's a new concept, but the lights were previously installed in a park in toronto and also in las vegas. the installation has been paid for through private donations to the golden gate park's san francisco 150 campaign.

it reflects a culture steeped in science and history and culture. >> i can't wait to visit it. safely, of course. >> wear masks, distance, sanitize, and don't gather. >> well, thank you for coming on the show today, mr. ginsburg. i appreciate the time you've given us today. >> thank you, and thank you for giving so much attention to golden gate park which has been so wonderful for us during covid and deserves a lot of extra love and attention on its 150 anniversary. >> and that's it for this episode. we'll be back with more information shortly. thank you for watching coping

with >> you may observe through sfgovtv and sfgovtv channel 26. they may offer public comment by calling the public comment phone number. i would like to welcome the members of public and staff watching us live on