good morning and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, september 13th, 2021. our first meeting back after our summer recess. i am the chair of the rules committee aaron peskin joined by vice chair supervisor rafael mandelman joined by connie chan, and our clerk mr. young. mr. young, do you have any announcements.

>> clerk: yes. city and public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. committee members will attend the meeting through the video conference and participate to the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item in this agenda. comments or opportunities to speak during public comment period are available via phone by calling (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24866130377 then press pound and pound again. when connecting, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star three to be added to the speaker line. best be practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn

down your television or radio. you may smith public comment to me, myself at victoryoung@sfgov.org. that completes my initial comment. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. can you please read the first item. >> clerk: yes. item number one is an around amending the campaign and government conduct code to expand the definition of interested party to include city contractors and persons seeking to influence city officers and employees to prohibit appointed department heads, commissions, and designated combes from soliciting behested payments from interested parties. >> chairman: thank you, colleagues. we are joined by supervisor

matt haney who is introducing this item in the revelations that former head of public works muhammad nuru turned the public works department into a says pool. and so -- >> anita. you have got to turn your microphone off. your item comes up later in today's meeting and i will proceed. thank you ms. louie. so as an admonition if you're not speaking please [inaudible] put your computer on mute. thank you. so on -- about a year ago right now in the middle of covid, our

controller ben rosenfield and his team issued a report that suggested this legislation to supervisor haney. proceeded with this, i have a number of questions but want to appreciate supervisor haney for getting into this in the middle of covid because we're having a public health emergency does not mean that we cannot work to clean up the culture of corruption that continues to permeate san francisco government embarrassingly so. with thanks, i know we are joined by pat forbe from the sf commission. i do have a number of questions as to whether or not this legislation goes far enough. but let me start by turning it over to supervisor haney.

>> supervisor haney: thank you, chair peskin and thank you supervisors chan and mandelman. first of all, let me thank you supervisor peskin. as we're in the middle of a pandemic the issues and allegations have pay to play contracting of course, exist far before that and this is an opportunity for us to put in protections and controls that really ensure that we eliminate that conflict of interest and protect the public dollar and restore the public trust. currently, there is no conflict of interest rule that prohibits city officials and employees from soliciting behested payments from interested parties. the absence of a conflict of interest rule for behested

payments prohibits a city that has long with pay to play contracting. the issue of behested payments as you noted, chair peskin, was a specific recommendation of the controller's report which related to public integrity in the wake of the corruption allegations related to director nuru. over the past year, i have worked with the san francisco ethics commission to come up with more key proposals to preserve some key fundraising activities that rely on philanthropy. today, we have patrick ford from the san francisco ethics economist to discuss these recommendations and discuss why the commission unanimously supports the enactment of a new city ordinance that prohibits officials and designated employees from asking interested parties to make behested payments.

i want to thank you mr. ford for his work on this legislation and also andrew chen for his assistance and, finally, as i said, for your support chair peskin and supervisor chan. i am open to questions. i think mr. ford will be able to get into the specifics and answer many of those question withes and he's prepared to do so and i'm also open to ways to improve on this legislation from you all if there are ideas to do that. so, with that, i will turn it over to mr. ford. >> chairman: mr. ford, good morning. >> good morning, chair peskin. thank you for having me. i want to thank supervisor haney and his staff for being such good partners on this legislation and thank you, of course, to supervisor peskin and chan as well for partnering on this. supervisor haney already touched on some of the high level points here, why this legislation exists.

we as a city must respond to bha we've learned over the last two years about what's going on in our department especially the department of public works and this is a big moment for us to step up and try to regain the public's trust, to try to reset the tone at the top that we know has gone so wrong for a number of reasons and one of them is what we have before us today which is behested payments. a behested payment is when a government officials and somebody to make a payment to a third party. this could be a supervisor asking you to give money to a nonprofit. in the case of muhammad nuru he asked colleagues to give money to a number of nonprofits.

last week, we see this continuing to unfold with yet another settlement, you nosey a $36 million penalty that -- >> chairman: it's actually $29 million. the feds gave recology the city settled with them it's really $29 million. >> thanks for that clarification. so i think it underscores the gravity of what happened. this legislation would directly respond to that fact pattern where you have a government official asking a person or organization that has official business before them to make a behested payment. that's the crux of this issue. you've also seen it recently with the federal government

arresting a senior building inspector and an engineer for a substantially similar scheme where the engineer, rodrigo santos was allegedly asking his clients to make payments to a nonprofit organization that was associated with the building inspector bernard caran and you see him approving inspections without actually carrying out the inspections. so this indicates a pattern. behested payments are something folks have been using as a work around to get around long standing ethics rule like the restricted source rule which prevents government officials from soliciting or accepting gifts directly to them from people who have business before them. likewise, we also have state and local rules about political contributions. you can't accept or solicit political contributions from contractors or people who are parties to proceedings before

you as a government official. the behested payments are somewhat of a loophole. this legislation today is hoping to bridge that gap. as supervisor haney mentioned, unanimously support this legislation and we're very excited to see it here today and glad to answer any questions you may have. >> chairman: thank you. and, we'll hear from my colleagues. i do have a few questions and i referenced this earlier. one, the way i am reading this legislation is if there is a solicitation by a department head to a noninterested party as defined, there does not appear to be unless i'm not reading this correctly, a requirement that the department file a behested report for the

solicitation for that non interested party to find. am i reading that correctly? >> that is correct. the he bested payments only apply when the person making the vested party isn't the interested party, visa vie that official. >> chairman: right. as i read it, that is prohibited. so on page 4 section 3.605 subsection a that's an absolute prohibition to solicit from the interested party as it should be. correct? >> correct in terms of appointed officials and employees who file the form 700. this legislation as written would not apply the prohibition to elected officials. so elected officials would be filing a report. >> chairman: i understand that.

i'm asking or maybe suggesting that if an appointed department head such as muhammad nuru who when this legislation passes would be prohibited as a matter of law from that they be subject to a duty to report the behested payment. what does mr. ford think about that? >> yeah. it's not something that we've looked at to date. i think this existing behested payment reporting system basically goes back to 2016 when our offices partnered together to set this up and at the time, this was the focus

where the instances where appointed officials were asking interested parties to make behested payments and i think that it was hard because those are the most problematic. >> chairman: well, those are the most problem -- frankly, those should have been illegal and quite frankly, you know, it's almost absurd that we have to legislate this. i mean, this is common sense that you don't go and hustle somebody who's doing business with your department, but, you know, it wasn't on the books and now weave got to put it on the books because muhammad nuru turned out to be a crook allegedly. but the filing requirement for an elected is my understanding is an elected has to report a behest from anybody; is that

correct? >> if it's $5,000 or more. between $1,000 and $5,000. >> chairman: and $5,000 has to be an interested party. the effective legislation is we're never going to hear from department heads who are out there soliciting donations because this legislation prohibits their solicitation from interested parties, doesn't require reporting from non interested parties. defines interested parties quite narrowly and let's get to that, which is, listen, a department head may well know and the community of potentially interested party its may well know that a contract is going to come up or a license is going to come up, but by the strict reading of this law, the prohibition doesn't actually kick in and an

officially interested party is not official until a proposal is actually submitted. so i can actually go out as a department head and put a r.f.p. out on the street and go talk to the xyx company and the lmnop company and the abc company and i can solicit behested payments from them and the definition in this legislation does not turn them into an interested party until they actually submit the proposal. and then, it terminates at the end of the contract term either six months following the date on which a find decision is

rendered. well, six months isn't a long time. ki do a little wink and a nod and i certainly now knowing what i now know about muhammad nuru and ask for a payment six months and there's no reporting requirement. so the public can't even put together the fact that mr. nuru as by way of example went and hustled these people at six months and one day which is legal under this legislation, but there's no way to know he did that because there's no subsequent reporting requirement. so i'm happy with this legislation because it is definitely a step in the right direction, but it could be a much larger step and i think and maybe we can fine tune it and i realize it's subject to

meet and confer that number one, we can require reporting by department heads of behested from non interested parties and you can see that he went to the x.y.z. corporation when the r.f.p. was out. i think at a minimum, we should do that. i also think that we can elongate these periods. six months is a really short period of time. it literally means that, you know, by march, i could do something right now by march or april, i can go and solicit a behested. it still is dirty, it's still as much pay to play, it's still the kind of behavior we want to limit. so, anyway, i want to throw

that out and with that i'll defer to my sponsor and my colleagues. >> supervisor haney: can i just jump in real quickly? >> chairman: sure. >> supervisor haney: i think those are great and we want to work on those changes together. we'd be very open to that. i wonder, mr. ford, if you could speak to each of them. i know that the reporting requirements is something that we considered. it does seem to me that for the purposes of how folks might want to get around this, you know, however we set the timeline that it would make sense to have some sort of reporting requirement similar to what's in place for elected officials at the least. is there a reason why, you know, what's your view on that? are there challenges with that logistically or objections to that or is that something that we could put into this? >> i think we certainly could.

we could definitely explore it for sure. i think the point of broadening the definition of interested party and the time window, i think that ultimately would probably be more impactful to try to really target what we consider to be problematic and make the prohibition as strong as possible. our experience has definitely been in the ethics territory as opposed to the finance territory. strong prohibitions are much more impactful than disclosures. disclosures can be a good secondary tool but i think really focusing energy on making the prohibition as broad as it needs to be to be effective, that's going to center a lot more return on investment, for sure. >> chairman: well, if we want to to broaden donations, why

don't we do what l.a. has done and create a non profit to support city initiatives. take department heads fully out of that they should just money on the side. there's a bright line. i mean, the problem with this is if you have somebody who as mr. nuru, they're just not going to report and you have no way of knowing that they're doing this because there's a rule that says that they can't do it. that parentally none of this stuff should begin with. i mean, it's interesting that require and indeed the existing law that donors have to file a behested. that's good because then you

can see that the person who's requesting the behested is being kept honest because of the fact the donor has to file a behested. the donor reports but the dehester does not report and then you can find that you you've got a crooked department head. so i would actually also say that the donee should be added as a report. mr. nuru and. as a matter of fact, they didn't report those publicly either. they are participating in the

behested game. wrong criminal activity. society went after and, in this case, you've got two, you've got the parks alliance and you've got mr. nuru. well the parks alliance has been held here these are ways we can figure this. i think this is a really good start. the more i realize that it can be beefed up quite a bit. supervisor chan.

>> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. i am a proud co-sponsor of this legislation and thank you for your initiative. i'm ready to support if there's an amendment on the floor to extend the filing period, you know, for the contractor that's submitting applications. instead knowing to see be that the permitting or just the contract process in the city. typically, it's way longer than six months. i think that it would be helpful to extend that time period. i agree that we could broaden the definition and extend the time period, but at the same time, i also recognize when there's an element for those of

us who hold office or are running for office, we know that, you know, you have to make the commitment to do reporting. you have to make the commitment and say there's just certain dollars that you won't take even far beyond what is required of us and i think that the bottom line here is that with our appointed levels of trust are broken. the level of trust just is not there to believe that our point to officers will hold themselves accountable and there will do whatever they can to by not just the minimum required, but beyond. so i think that the question is

back to all of us here at the committee, but also supervisor haney is, you know, but how do we bridge that. are we here to do what is the minimum or are we going to try to in hire. i'm hope because this is just one bite of the apple. this is just one piece of the puzzle. there's just so much that we need to do. i think we're thinking about many ways we're continuing to hold our city government accountable and there's many ways to go at it. i just want you to know that i'm open and i'm supportive however way we can make it better. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. vice chairmandelman, any

comments. >> supervisor mandelman: nope. i think you all are working through good potential expansion of this which i support. >> chairman: and, by the way, we can do, i think something in this case is better than nothing we can consider legislation. i don't know and i would defer the city attorney as to what can be done quickly. i mean, if we were to continue this a week in committee, are these things that would have to, a, be subject to additional meet and confer or are these things that would have to be re-referred to the ethics commission because they are part of the campaign governmental conduct code. while we're listening to public comment, we can have the city attorney think of those things. with that, mr. young, why don't we open item number one up to public comment unless, mr. ford, there's anything you

want to add. >> thank you, chair peskin. i think the one thing i'll add is where the ethics commission seeks to expand this is to apply elected officials. that was apart of the ethics commission's recommendation and it's something the ethics commission still feels pretty strongly should be apart of this. >> chairman: fine by me. >> clerk: yes, chair peskin, i believe we may need to take a quick technical recess. i was wondering if we can confirm that we need to do that. >> chairman: on the question as to whether or not we are having technical difficulties with the bridge? >> clerk: i believe we do need to take a quick recess. >> chair pes kin, this is john.

we are having slight issues, so we need to re-establish the bridge. >> chairman: is 5 minutes enough? >> 5 minutes should be enough. thank you. >> chairman: okay. it is now 10:36. we will recess until 10:41. public comment. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on

this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24836130377 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please press star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. i believe we have four callers in line to speak at this time. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> i'm the president of sunset parkside education and action committee speaking on my own behalf in strong support with the amendments proposed by the committee chair. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hello. >> chairman: good morning. go ahead. >> this is paul planthold. i'm a former ethics commissioner and also a member of an advocacy group called friends of ethics. i support the draft measure. i also support any attempt that's successful today to make an amendment, a technical amendment that does not delay passing this along to the full board. i know this is not complete. it's not thorough, it's a start and like any journey, it begins with a first step. so please move ahead with this item and with any technical amendments that are allowable. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, mr. planthold. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> chairman: we can hear you, mr. pillpell.

go ahead. >> good morning, david pillpell. so i heard part of the discussion. i think that additional legislation should probably just very clearly prohibit entities that are friends of city departments. i think we're past the time of understanding whether it's, you know, the good people at the friends and foundation that supports the library or parks alliance or the friends of city planning that these entities really don't serve the useful purpose that they were set up to do, but instead are doing these other things. if people want to contribute to the city, they should be encouraged to do so and to contribute to the city, we've got, you know, type five funds or other ways to accept a gift

to the city from individuals and organizations and i'm not at all convinced that these friends of groups are needed and i think legislation that just clearly puts them out of business and sunsets them. it's the direction we should go. nevertheless, i support the legislation today and the further amendments and ideas that were talked about and, finally, it's not clear to me from the current legislation that speaks to elected officials and their reporting requirements and prohibitions what restrictions and reporting requirements would exist for non elected appointed board and commission members in which we have several hundred in the city that could and in some cases may or do behest payments to organizations for or not for favorable treatment before

their board or commission. so looking for clarification on that in the future. thank you to all for your work on this. >> clerk: thank you. i believe we have one more caller. >> chairman: last speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is teresa foglio ramirez for local 261. we want to thank you for bringing up behest payments and trying to address the issue. ment our membership has suffered through our essential workers for years behind these behest payments. we believe the legislation is a good first step, but it doesn't go quite far enough. there are too many loopholes for electives and for the directors and gms of these departments and it doesn't go far enough to address these issues. so please consider making it a little stronger. thank you so much.

>> chairman: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item number one? >> clerk: i believe that completes our queue for public speakers at this time. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. why don't we go to the city attorney and ask whether there are changes that we can make here on the spot or what has to go back to ethics and what has to go back to meet and confer. i think some easy ones might be to change in section 3.605 subsection a1b 6 months to 12 months. that would be easy.

deputy city attorney pearson would we have to make that recommendation? >> good morning supervisors. we have not prepared any amendments today. we're not prepared to approve any, but we're happy to approve any for introduction next week. the legislation would not require re-referral to the ethics commission. it was sent to them for their input, but the referral's not legally required. as you noted, supervisor peskin, this legislation was subject to meet and confer. any amendments might also trigger notice but that's a decision ultimately for d.h.r. to make. but my understanding is that the process earlier was very short. >> chairman: that's the way it appeared in the file which makes sense. i don't think the m.e.a. wants to stand up for corruption by the department heads, do they? okay. thank you for that legal advice, counselor.

colleagues, i they we have a number of ways we can proceed. i personally am fine with subjecting elected officials to the same requirements, obviously, those amendments are not prepared, but could be prepared in the intervening week and certainly would not be subject to meet and confer. they'd just be subjected to the vote of elected officials and would not need to go back to ethics as ms. pearson stated. i am interested in adding the donee requirement. we could either do that with an amendment next week or with legislation. i quite frankly and this would be subject to meet and confer would prefer just a full on prohibition from department heads soliciting anybody for behested payments. period. if the parks alliance wants to go knock on peoples' doors, god bless themes, but i don't

think department heads should be referring donors to them or telling donors to contribute to them or similar organizations which ever folks are friends of organizations that are and there it is by way of comprehensive list in the controller's report from september of last year, but i personally would just ban the practice all together. short of that, we i do believe should have reporting of behested payments of quote unquote non-interested parties as defined and i think we should strengthen those definitions. it sounds like the city attorney is not prepared to do that today, although i certainly would make the following i think easy amendments to 3.605 whether it's next week or at the floor of the board, we obviously could duplicate the file and keep one in committee, but that would be that in subsection a1b

to elongate that six months to at least a year and in a2 change it from submission to the issuance of a request for proposals or similar city solicitation. so i think those would be easy ways to strengthen that, but in any event, i think we should require behested reporting by department heads from non-interested parties as defined, but i defer to chief sponsor haney and i think this is a proud cosponsor as to whether or not we should duplicate and send the file as is to the full board or continue it one week and see if we can make some changes in committee or see if we can make changes at the full board in a week. mr. haney. >> supervisor haney: i am

open. i think most of the things you said i would agree to and i think would strangen the legislation. i think if we can maybe i would ask our deputy city attorney about what the best way to do this is. if we send it to the board, we can make the amendments there. if there's a question of that, we could keep it here. i'm open. what's the best way to do this? >> chairman: deputy city pearson will respond and then we'll go to supervisor haney and supervisor chan. >> deputy city attorney, my recommendation would be to keep it in committee for one week. we're happy to work with you and see if we can draft the ones you've requested and see if any others come up during that time. it's just one week delay. >> chairman: okay. it can wait one more week.

supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin, and i am definitely in support to extend this prohibition to elected officials. i think that, you know, we're holding the department and appointed officers to that then we ought to be aligned with them as well and i am also in support of prohibiting behest payments of all together frankly, i think that makes the relationship just that much cleaner and easier for nonprofits or foundations or anyone really, anybody who wants to donate to the city. they can donate directly to us and a donation should just be

philanthropic and that means we should check them more. but that's a side conversation, a different conversation. so i'm ready to support for us to wait one week. i'm also ready to duplicate a file to move something forward, but i see perhaps waiting for one week to have the clarifying language is probably the best way to go at this moment. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. yeah. i concur with the advice that we have received from counsel. that's probably the smoothest, best way to do this is in committee. i will work with the chief sponsor supervisor haney to perhaps schedule committee report and it would land at the board at the same time, but we can take that conversation off line. so clerk young, on the motion to continue this item one week to our meeting of september 20th, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, [roll call]

the motion to continue the matter one week passed out objection. >> chairman: all right. next item please. >> supervisor haney: see you next week. thank you. >> clerk: next on the agenda is item number two. hearing to consider appointing three members to the shelter monitoring committee. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. colleagues, as you'll recall, we extended the sunset date of this body which is a unique body to july of 2022, which is coming up quickly, and, we have angie david from the department of public health and i'll let her go into a little bit more

detail about the admission of this body in our continuum of care network. it's the only body charged with actually monitoring conditions in our congregate shelter settings. you will note that we actually in this particular instance have four applicants for six seats. usually as chair of the rules committee, i wait until we have applicants for all of the vacant seats, but given that the sunset date of this body is next summer, i want to make sure that there is a quorum on this body so that they can get to work and do that work, so that's why i've come to you colleagues with a partial list

of four individuals for the six seats and we will hear from them after we get a brief presentation from ms. david. i want to thank the four applicants. we've still got a bunch of stuff on our agenda and with that, ms. david, welcome to your committee and to your new job. go ahead. >> thank you so much. good morning. hope you can see me. good morning, supervisor peskin, supervisor mandelman, and supervisor chan. as supervisor peskin mentioned, my name is angie david. i am one of the staffers for monitoring committee. we provide the mayor, the board of supervisors local homeless coordinating boards, other agencies of interest and, of course, the public with accurate information about the conditions in an operation of congregate shelters to improve

the health and safety and treatment of residents, clients, staff and of course, our homeless committee. the committee seeks to ensure general and permanent in the condition in shelters and empower residents to have a voice. we conduct regularly monthly announced and unannounced visits. we have a voicemail where folks can leave their concerns and we do our best to investigate every concern. we also have an e-mail that's provided to the public and both voicemail and e-mail are monitored daily. the committee's mission is to recognize individual human rights and promote universal standard of care for congregate shelters in the city and county of san francisco. s.m.c. consists of formerly homeless individuals, advocate, service providers, and representatives of the city agency. we have the capacity for 13 members. currently, we have three renewals up today and one new

member for appointment. this will put us at 11 and continued efforts are being made to fill our last two seats. we are not above covid-19 pandemic causing delays. we are so thankful that we were given an extension until july 2022. now the committee is so robust. one of the tasks will be to go ahead extended for a 5-year term and, of course, we'll be hoping for your full support. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, ms. david. are there any questions or comments from committee members? i see nobody up on the roster. so, mr. young, why don't we go to the four applicants for the four seats starting with cris plunkett for seat number two. >> yeah. sure. hi everyone. it's a pleasure to meet you

all. i've prepared a written statement. i'm more than happy to read that aloud if you'd like or we can talk more. whatever your preference. >> chairman: i think some of us remember you in your time on the youth commission and go ahead and read your statement. >> okay. when i was 16, i became homeless for the first time. rooted in an unstable and volatile household. i still recall those feelings of deep seeded anguish that came to me for the first time. i was cold, crying, and alone. homelessness and its implications have been part of my life and it's something i've been in and out of for quite a few number of difficult years. at this time, i am homeless and it's definitely not something fun to deal with, but during these times, my already existent yet present struggles. depression syndrome continued

to be exacerbated. i developed post to a mat inc. stress disorder from the many times experience and on numerous indications can reach debilitating scenarios. it has made me deeply receptive to the inequalities that exist in our system and. especially from those that struggle for mental disabilities, trauma. our shelters must be able to accommodate. numerous individuals who have experienced their own difficulties, i've been provided with the fantastic insight that i hope would make. my direct experience in my life as a homeless youth paired with the is my sincere hope that

would make a good addition to the health committee and assist members goals. this is something i'm passionate about and would love to be part of a committee that helps our city shelters. >> chairman: thank you, cris. we appreciate that and good luck to you. with that, why don't we go on to gabriela avalos. >> good morning everyone. this is the second firm that i'm going for in the committee. so, working with individuals who have an extensive history of homelessness and that have used various san francisco shelter programs. the shelter monitoring committee will allow me to present benefits and concerns in the shelter that are existing right now. i work with a lot of people in

and out of homelessness. i work with the challenges with individuals as well as families, as well as seniors. i would love the opportunity to continue with this committee. i am a san francisco native. i'm a resident. i'm a mother. and, improving the health and safety of the homeless community is really important to me. i more than ever especially with the pandemic think that it's really important for this committee to continue and support the city of san francisco with help and support. i hope i am elected to this

committee to continue learning, to continue maintaining and improve the atmosphere of all of the shelters. there's been a lot of new shelters since i came on board and so i'm just really eager to see what we can do to continue helping improve these shelters. for whatever it's worth, i also assisted a shelter monitoring team when i came on with two different transitions. i was actually present when angela david came on. forming just a policies. anyhow, i think more than ever,

we need a strong committee and i would be really happy to be on it. >> chairman: thank you for your service and thank you for your statement. and, with that, we will go on to the next applicant diana almanza who requires a residency waiver. ms. almanza, the floor is yours. >> good morning. and, thank you for allowing me to re-apply. i've been on the shelter monitoring committee and i feel like i can contribute. i have over 30 years of experience in administration in working with the homeless directly and as a volunteer. i've been a member of fema board, a community action agency and what i can say to you during my volunteer work and working with folks, it's been the most rewarding experience of my life and i hope to continue to contribute

as a member of the shelter monitoring committee. >> chairman: thank you so much. and thank you for your past and future service. and, with that, we'll go on to traci watson. >> good morning board of supervisors. my name is tracy watson. >> chairman: good morning. >> good morning board of supervisors and my san francisco family and friends. >> chairman: ms. watson, you are frozen. you need to get to a better cell spot. that's a little better. you've got to get closer to a good spot. >> clerk: in addition to that, we suggest that you stop

walking to allow -- >> to counsel. >> clerk: we lost you for a little bit due to technical issues. we suggest that you stop moving because that's causing a bit of delay and we'll start your time over once you get settled. you are on mute, ms. watson. >> is that better? >> chairman: that's better. >> okay. cool. awesome. so, thank you. sorry about that. sorry for that. so, again, my name is traci watson. i am a native of san francisco and i am a former seat six holder of the shelter monitor

and committee and i've served i guess for the past four years and minus last year. so that would actually be three. and, i would like to be considered for another year because of my past service and my passion for the homeless community. i started off working in the shelter system with united counsel. i worked with the family shelter, the women's shelter. i also worked over at united counsel shelter. i also worked at a woman's place, brockman shelter and also the transitional housing at 1138 howard and then i went to 2211 13th street and that's where i first got the passion of working in the homeless -- working on wanting to serve on the shelter monitor committee as an employee over at c.a.t.s.

and working with my co-workers and when the s.m.c. council came in and did a walk through and my concern why i wanted to get on the board is because of the staff that they were hiring and lack of empathy and just the de-escalation, the lack of i want to say training for de-escalation working with the homeless community and the importance of that. i am a former recovering addict for 11 years. i just celebrated 11 years clean from crack cocaine myself. i've never been homeless, but i did choose to like, you know, to go to be on the streets and to hang out in tents or we hung

in campers and stuff like that. so i'm very familiar with that lifestyle. go ahead. >> clerk: we have -- we were trying to keep the comments down to two minutes. your two minutes has elapsed. >> thank you. >> chairman: thank you, ms. watson and thank you for your past and i suspect future service on this body. why don't we open this up to general public comment. are there any individuals who would like to comment on this item number two? >> clerk: yes. members of the public call (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24836130377. then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand.

please wait until your system has indicated you have been unmuted and you may begin to speak. at this time, we have no callers in the queue. >> chairman: going once, going twice, any individuals who would like to testify on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed. and, seeing no comments from committee members. oh, supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. i want to say thank you to all the applicants. it's really a challenging job to be on the committee, but most importantly, thank you so much for all of you sharing your personal stories. it is very challenging and hard to put yourself out there and tell your stories and be more about but i just want to express my thanks to all of them today. >> chairman: thank you. and let me associate myself as they say with supervisor chan's comments and appreciation and, with that, why don't we forward

these four individuals with recommendation to the full board of supervisors. mr. young, on that motion, a roll call please. >> clerk: chair peskin, i believe that ms. almanza will need a residency waiver. >> chairman: with a residencyware for said individual for said seat as has been granted in the past. >> clerk: yes. on motion to appoint cris plunkett to seat two, gabriela avalos to seat three, diana almanza to seat four with a residency waiver recommendation and traci watson to seat six. on that motion, [roll call] the motion passes without objection.

>> chairman: thank you, mr. young. could you please read item three and four together. and, ms. david, congratulations on your first time out and we will look forward to your quarterly reports and have a good productive week. all right. mr. young. >> clerk: yes. item number three is a motion approving the mayor's nomination for appointment of vanita louie to the recreation and park commission for term ending june 27, 2025. and item number four is a motion for approving/rejecting the mayor's nomination for appointment of laurence griffin to the recreation and park commission for term ending june 27, 2025. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. a seven member body which pursuant to the charter of the city and county of san francisco are all appointed by the mayor and pursuant to

section 3.100 of the charter are subject to review and indeed rejection by a majority of the board of supervisors. i don't think that is going to happen in the case of these two individuals, but it is really an opportunity for this body and the board of supervisors to get to know these individuals, to talk about the issues of the day at rec and park and to have the public be able to see that and express themselves as well. i know both of the applicants. mr. griffin, who is the subject of item number four for many years. and, ms. louie in the last number of years most recently as she retired from business and gotten totally involved in community things of all

stripes. much of it in the community that i have the honor of representing in the northeast corner of san francisco our beloved chinatown. so thank you for joining us this morning and congratulations on your appointments to the recreation and parks department or commission. i would be remiss if i did not also say that there has as if you were around for item number one, around for item number one, the issue of behested payments that a number i don't know if they have official firms of the group. although, they've got some slippery friends to what we now know of the tragic cespool and

i'm not saying that their 1800 workers are in any way guilty directly or by association with what their former department head did but it has been a tragedy of the city and county of san francisco that we are still digging out of and implicated in the midst of that, it wasn't the public works alliance, it was the parks alliance which has led to increasing sensitivity around the relationship between recreation and parks department and the parks alliance and we've heard no shortage of problematic stories including, let's be frank, i had the pleasure of meeting ms. louie

on friday and she was very forthright about it, the public harassment of elected officials by the parks alliance. so i think it is important that we have this conversation not only for this panel and our colleagues to get to see you and talk to you and the public to witness that, but also given the relationship between rec and park and really the important role that the commission can and should play as a governmental oversight body in ensuring that these sensitivities and concerns are appropriately addressed, i think we can say today is well timed. i have some questions, but let me before we hear a statement from ms. louie and i have same questions i'll ask the two candidates. let me defer to my colleagues.

vice chairman mandelman, do you have anything you want to add or say. >> supervisor mandelman: only that iknown mr. griffin for a very long time. i've gotten to know ms. louie a little more recently and have heard many good things about both of them, but i'll leave it at that for now. >> chairman: supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. i think i want to first thank really the former commissioners both commissioner allen lowe and commissioner eric mcdonald for their service on the commission. they have represented communities that really have been most underserved in san

francisco's parks system historically and for far too long and i think that they fought a good fight and they tried really hard to represent and so it's good to also see that, you know, mayor breed has appointed, you know, respectively both ms. louie and mr. griffin to the seats for representation. i do have questions actually the same questions for both as well, but i do have a very specific one for ms. louie whenever chair peskin deems it appropriate for me to ask; but i do agree and share the sentiment with chair peskin that ultimately my question for both is the accountability and transparency of how the city department in this case really rec and park makes those

decisions by the services that they provide to our communities and particularly for those who we identify to be in equity zone. that's including chinatown or bayview and just obviously i represent the west side of the city. but in my case, in the district, richmond playground. i just really want to make sure we serve our communities equitably and whether it's that pay to play culture should have nothing to do with our park system. knowing that it is the most funded park system in the nation that was reported by bloomberg and supported by the data that provided by trust for public land and, yet, when it comes to equity that means

social economic and racial equity in our parks system, san francisco doesn't even make top ten. i've said that before and i'm going to repeat this information point today to emphasize why i think that, you know, your appointments are critical at this point for the city department and for the city park system to make sure that even as we recover from the pandemic that we invest our dollars, but invest our services for those most vulnerable and in need. so thank you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. we may well have the same similar questions for the two appointees. as much as i wanted to call you over the weekend and ask you what you were going to ask, i did not want to have a meeting of a quorum of this committee and in any way violate the

sunshine or brown act, so i'll start with i have -- we could spend the rest of the day on this, but relative to the various issues that are out there, i think you just touched on an important and profound one around equity and resources. i've got three and, supervisor chan, i think you're very familiar, probably more familiar with any other member of the board of supervisors given your history as a long time member of the recs and parks staff a number of years back. so i know you're familiar with this. but, i just wanted to touch on the tension a little bit less in recent years, but certainly, it's still out there around the issue of privatization, use of

clubhouses by third parties. controversy around the botanical garden and membership, the issue the fact that certain facilities are free for san franciscans, but are not free for non-san franciscos, the notion that the board just grappled with in this budget of surge pricing if you will to certain facilities like the tea garden and koit tower and i just wanted to, but we'll start, but i just wanted to give you a heads up of where i was going to go, ms. louie. we'll start with your opening statement. but i also wanted to get your position on nonprofit staffing

versus city staffing on park facilities and how rec and parks can ensure that programming is community based and culturally competent and affordable if not free to all. but with that, ms. louie, i will start by welcoming you. thank you for taking the time to reach out to me on friday. i saw you at chinatown night out last wednesday. i see you in the community all the time. and thank you for your good community work. with that, ms. louie, the floor is yours. >> well, thank you and good morning chair peskin and supervisor chan, supervisor mandelman and larry. so i want to thank you for giving me this opportunity because it is truly an honor and privilege to serve the city of san francisco. i learned firsthand about service from my mother who served as a social worker in the city. had a city job for 17 years. she was a case manager and she

made regular home visits to low income residents and families who lived in the tenderloin. she would come home every day and say, "oh, what a hard day." but for 17 years, i would frequently hear her say "i love my job." i was born at chinese hospital like bruce lee was and lived in the richmond district and went to public schools and then we went to anta vista when i was in high school. i want to just say i was raised in the community by the community and chinatown and the rec center were like our baby sitters and this is where i learned to swim, play guitar, and made life long friends, learned to socialize attending all those rec camps and these

programs basically kept us chinatown kids out of trouble. and, having two grown daughters lindsey and julie, i put them through the same programs. i would fight every summer for cooking culinary camp and so on and so forth. so we need to make sure and ensure these programs continue to be available for all families and youth and seniors throughout the city and i really want to focus on keeping these programs affordable and reasonable and it was especially highlighted through this poignantly covid pandemic. i hope to continue the work of commissioner allen lowe, the champion especially in our chinatown and um, portsmith square, he leaded along with supervisor peskin and supervisor chan and many of the other supervisors along with

the chinatown leaders and leadership team and so i want very much to become part of this team and i want to listen and learn from them and from you. so speaking on building on that, i need to commend supervisor chan for the work and leadership that you have given through your service and work through the rec and park and you continue to do so in district one, continue to serve the underserved and you know i want to continue that work and build on it. so when it comes to mind after this wonderful weekend of the autumn festival, i think that betty ann transformed into this beautiful facility for all families and it's very deserving.

i know betty would be proud. it certainly does not look like the same recreation that i went to all summer, so it's projects like this that i am really excited to be apart of and, having said that, there are projects down the pipeline, very important projects, you know, the rec center, the port smith square, the japanese tea garden are places that i grew up going to and together with the leadership team, with the supervisors, i want to lead with my heart and i want to sit down with each members of the board of supervisors to see what parks and concerns and things they have to share with me and through that, i thank you very much for this time. >> chairman: thank you, ms. louie. so i just want to follow up on

my first question about regarding staffing by whether nonprofits at our clubhouses or by city staff what your position is on that and your position on ensuring that programming is community based and i think you just touched on that a little bit and affordable if not free to everybody residents and non-residents alike. where you're at on that. >> i will do whatever it takes to have equity fairness. i think it's very important that we look at our own residents as far as hiring and, you know, given many people are out of work, it's very important that they are given the opportunity to serve and to be a part of this beautiful city.

so, through the nonprofits, i know there's a lot of workforce programs out there and so i would love to see that they would hire and treat jobs with fairness and in this way, it will help to provide a lot of economic struggles that a lot of people are going through. >> chairman: thank you. and, then, we touched on this a little bit when we visited friday morning last friday and, of course, the parks throughout the city, but the one that i represent and chinatown lies in is obviously the densest part of the city with among the least amount of open space per capita, but the parks that we do have are as we know, you know, remarkably precious assets whether washington square and willy woohoo wong

playground that you cited in your statement that in our committee packet and, of course, the living room of chinatown and the northeast corner the port smith square which thank you to the voters of san francisco on the eve of a long needed and much awaited renovation, but those precious assets that serve everybody from low income seniors to folks living in, you know, very cramped conditions have been protected by a voter approved ordinance, proposition k the shadow ban around that offered 35 years ago put on the ballot and, today, there are many developers particularly in the downtown area and some of their political supporters who want to repeal that ordinance, but, meanwhile, it is the law,

voter-approved law and i think polling has shown that the voters are in no mood to repeal it which is why developers have not managed to get it on a ballot because a repeal would lose. but some of those parks have indeed gotten additional shadow even though they are deemed to be 0 tolerance parks because the commission has voted to increase the shadow distance for those parks. so i want to know what you think about that and how you'll represent the people throughout the city, but particularly people in the northeast corner are subject to potential shadow because high-rises are more likely to be built in and around the downtown. although, there have been shadow impacts in other parts of the city. so how will you represent that

>> i just have to be truth ful with you. i am not up to speed on all the shadow over the parks. i know prop k was adopted a long time ago and it was critical at that time. and, you know, to prevent degradation of our parks, i would like to make personal site inspections and be informed of all the technical analysis and look at all that. but as a commissioner in

reviewing these projects, asia doe does and would impact many projects and as the city grows taller and above and if additional shadows casted on shadows that already exist, that would be a concern for me. so it would impact us sitting in the park. take, for example, the willy woohoo wong, as i mentioned to you, supervisor peskin. i sit there with a cup of coffee, you know, java, i sit the boys play basketball around 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. and i noticed on my own without the shadow top inc. coming up that the existing buildings already cast a pretty dark shadow. it's hard to see the ball. there's a tennis court there. so i noticed that on my own, but so, you know, as things --

san francisco, i'm not against redevelopment. it would certainly be a case to case examination of the project, but i am willing to listen and learn and i'm very excited to be apart of all that. >> chairman: all right. thank you for that answer. and then, as i referenced earlier around the dynamic tension between this board, members of this board, the department, and the parks alliance which has been under increased scrutiny and as set forth in the controller's report operated as a piggy bank for the departments where department heads have basically instructed them how to spend money that they've directed to

these shadow accounts. would you be in support of the requirement that would subject the parks alliance and other similarly situated nonprofits and the rec and park department wherein the commission would have to approve the expenditure by the parks alliance in excess of $10,000? do you have any thoughts on that given the current dynamic that we are situated in? >> yes. so i want to say the philanthropic partnerships are vital but where two rivers never meet is never calm. the situation that i learn about reading about the things

that are going on and the misfunneling of money and donors, i'm very concerned and i liked what i heard from item number one, the suggestion of a donee reporting. so with the very recent memo random of understanding the page that's structured for the rec and park and the parks alliance, i know that document is not binding at all, but it's very important to see how the stakeholders are held accountable. procedures and reporting and requirements, know what the -- let the right hand know what the left hand is doing i think is very -- it will be very beneficial. so as a commissioner, you know, we ultimately are accountable

for to the public and it's nice that we have a framework whereby we can keep all the stakeholders accountable to make disclosures, to file reports, you know, auditing. so i particularly like i mentioned to supervisor chan on our zoom call, i particularly as a resident and what i learned did not appreciate the tone of the letter that she received. i believe that there are -- my technique would have been to have the parties come together and hear things out, but not send a written letter like that. you know, it was like a ransom note, you know. so i really seriously can appreciate that. it was not what san francisco is about and not a way of how we should communicate with

others. so i -- there was one section exhibit a, section c where it talked about, you know, the way that the two parties would fund something, but i didn't see any language in there like it was suggested in recommended from item number one. so it would be nice to see who some of the donors are that are donating. i think we should see. i myself, write a check, my name appears on a donor list. so i would like to see that maybe adopted into the m.l.u. although it's only a one-year document. i would not want to extend it without adding some kind of language in there to make the donor kind of accountable for so that we can avoid

uncomfortable situations. >> chairman: all right. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. ms. louie, i think my two questions for you and one, the first one is going to be the same for both is that how do you -- knowing that for the commission, obviously, you're one of the seven that but nonetheless, you're sitting on the daius, how do you approach making sure and holding the city department accountable both in the recreational programming or just decision making. which park or playground or recreation facility for renovation and so just kind of

want to understand your approach for holding rec and park accountable and making sure the process is transparent in terms of decision making. >> so, supervisor chan, are you speaking about a specific project or how i would approach -- >> supervisor chan: yeah. i think just in general how would the approach, you know, holding rec and park accountable, what is their approach? i think the second question that i have for you is actually specifically about port smith square knowing that it wasn't in the most recently proposed bond. port smith square wasn't part of the proposed bond, it took the community to come forward to actually fight for it to be part of the bond even though

the community went through a million dollars in outreach and a lot of effort in it including the conversation around the bridge, including the conversation about what they would like to see in the clubhouse and the playground. everybody knows it's the living room of chinatown. everybody cares about it. it's where everybody gathers through all the chinese holidays, especially chinese new year parade. so the first part of the question is, how do you hold the city department accountable and transparent? in that, a good example is the port smith square that it was not on the part of the bond. the community actually had to come out and fight for it and thanks to the support of supervisor peskin and my predecessor and norman yee that really put together the support for the community in order for it to include port smith

square. how would you approach a situation like that in holding the city department accountable so we don't lead to this effort that the community feels like they have to fend for themselves? >> so i would just pay attention to the facts. get to know the project, approach each project with honesty. hold, you know, whoever's involved accountable. keep everything transparent. work with the community leaders. work with the community, go out there and see the project and i know that our beloved port smith square was not on the first list, but thank god it's on the second list. and so things take time. i want to judge and approach each one with fairness, work along keep my close touch with the rec and park.

get to know phil ginsburg. i know to see these things through, every case will be different, but i would wholeheartedly hold each project wholeheartedly go out, meet the community, see what they have to say, bring this information back. so that's how i would approach each issue. and, as far as port smith square, yes, we all agree supervisor peskin as well as yourself and commissioner allen lowe as well as the other community heads in chinatown. i attended one of the meetings and i was very impressed with how a vision was made, how commissioner lowe help bid with, you know, the departments

and even with our mayor to get port smith square on the list. so i'm coming in at a real good time because a lot of the hard work has already been done, but i'm looking forward to putting my small feet in commissioner lowe's big shoes and see this through and together with the community continue to do the work that and the motivation and the excitement about making port smith square our center stage, our crown jewel and a long overdue awaiting renovation. i'm happy to see it make fruition in my lifetime and it's very vital for all the 15,000 plus residents that live in around i know we have a small number of parks and, you know, there's just not very

many parks in open space and even during pandemic, you know, you've got to get out of your little four walls and they have nowhere to go but their open space. it's vital and essential. health and recreation keeping the recreational programs affordable for everywhere. you know, my brothers and sisters in the bayview, it's very essential for, you know, equity and cultural awareness. >> supervisor chan: thank you, ms. louie. i think i want to say that i had a chance to express my commitment to port smith square renovation and really the support for the chinatown community. i know that it's not the district i represent, but it's really where my heart has always been.

it's where i grew up, but, you know, i think, yeah it's just the overall equity for all communities across san francisco, but chinatown and port smith square, i had the impression and the commitment from mayor breed, you know, and she recognized my commitment to it and the fact that and shared that commitment with me and she committed to the port smith square renovation and making sure we make improvements and i really appreciate that support from the mayor as well. you know, i just want to give a last shout-out all across a.a.p.i. communities in san francisco just not that i don't or won't urge all commissioners to recognize that. and i'm going to share that burden with you, ms. louie, you

know, when you come to the table, you bring that perspective. and that's a burden we share and i want to give a shout-out to the japantown community and they have suffered with the renovation of the japantown peace plaza. the japantown community also has suffered greatly during this pandemic not just for merchants, but for the residents as well in that there is a leak that has been ongoing in that parking garage that the city actually had a settlement with. we really need rec and park to step up to the plate and commit and fix the leak in the garage and making sure that the peace plaza is maintained well for the community. that is key critical to the vitalization of the japantown community as well. so i'm going to stop there, but

i probably will turn to mr. griffin for his questions very same thing is just really about how the whole city department like rec and park accountable, making sure that the decision process is transparent. we know that bayview in this valley say former legislative aid to sofie maxwell. we know it's in need of clean up in district 10 as well, but just also making sure that buchananal in western addition continue to push forward with that, and again, japanese -- japantown, peace plaza and even the japanese tea garden in golden gate park. those are all in dyer need of repair, they somehow have been neglected, but i think that's because communities of color need to come to the table and

representation and need to continue to push forward in our system. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor mandelman, any questions or comments? >> supervisor mandelman: not especially. i would like to i think echo your question concerns about shadows in parks. that's something that i am also concerned about and i do think there could be a slow sort of gradual project by project minor change here and minor expansion shadow there and pretty soon you've gone deep into taking away a public benefit and i also share, you know, the concerns that chair peskin raised around privatization. i do think it's a tricky balance of finding ways to get additional revenue for this department and i think the department has been excellent at that and also ensuring that

the public benefit is for the public. i'm curious, the chair doesn't have to answer this for me now and it has come up before. intuitively to me, i'm not sure given how much san franciscans pay in taxes and the heavy burdens that they often bear that it's a terrible ask of visitors that to our great public spaces, but we don't have to talk about that now. i'm just sort of curious. >> chairman: some of that and this is maybe a conversation for another place and time but some of that actually was discussed by the board during the budget as it related to the surge pricing proposal which i

think the board understood and addressed. i mean, the reality is san francisco's general fund is actually quite generous with rec and park. it's always struck me as a traveler when you go to many places and i can name many of them where the traveler is treated different. it's always a less appeal i think a city can actually make its parks referral. then again, i'm the guy who didn't think that our shared spaces should be boarded up at night because they're on public right of way. i've certainly held beliefs about the public comments, but

probably a conversation for another place and time we will, after we talk to mr. griffin public comment on both items. mr. griffin, seeing no other questions for ms. louie. please make an opening statement and i think supervisor chan will ask you the same questions. the floor is yours? >> thank you, chair peskin and supervisor mandelman and chan. it's great to see all of you. my name is laurence griffin, however, most people know me as larry. more specifically golden gate

park with my neighborhood park being the. some michigan favorite childhood members took place in those parks. first, in the lower hate eight that's where i was born and then from when i was eight years old until now in the western addition also known as the nopa neighborhood. my family was not able to pack the car and drive up to russian river. our recreation was in our city parks as it is for so many families facing the constraints and limitations of the covid-19 pandemic. my background has consisted of years of public service and many years as a union representative.

my public service consisted of working for the human rights commission, then several years with project safe, i then worked through the district attorney's office in the support bureau also known as child support and then transferred over to the criminal division. from there, once i left there, i began my own labor career and i say that to distinguish that of my father who was a long respected labor leader with the local 1100. i went to work for local 250, hospital health care workers union where i started as a business representative and later became the political director. for local 250 i went to work for local 21 as a staff person organizing mid level professionals in oakland. i then worked for the city and

again until my retirement in june of last year right in the middle of the pandemic. that's not the ideal time to retire, but i did it. some of my civic activity include serving on the board of the booker t.2021. six years as president on the board while we completed a $35 million rebuild of the center which included 50 units of housing 25 which were designated for k transitional age youth aging out of foster care and that gave them a place to land in 24 units of below market rate housing. i would like to add that booker t. celebrated our 100th

anniversary last year. i also served as an assembly member for j.c.r.c., the jewish community relations council. and my nomination be confirmed, i will always strive for transparency and also give the voices of the public's concern on issues the highest priority. i've heard just recently on the issue in speaking with you last week, chair peskin, the issue of the shadows and some of the parks in chinatown. i would like to really delve into that and take a look at that and learn more about the issue. every book i've read on the history of san francisco, is always has a huge part of port smith square in it going back to when the city was founded. so it is the heart of the chinatown community now, but i think it's the heart of san francisco actually and it should be protected that way.

i thank you for your time and i'm sure you have questions for me. >> chairman: thank you, mr. griffin. well, you just answered one of mine. you kind of answered two of mine. why don't i go directly to the -- i mean, insofaras the parks alliance has, inessence, been the alter ego of the department. would you support a requirement subjecting the parks alliance and giving the commission authority over approving expenditures in excess of $10,000 and how would you curb the problematic intermingling of resources and the government between the parks alliance? >> i would really like to take

a real close look at this m.o.u. that has just been done and also take a real look, i mean all of this came together real quick for me. i also want to read the controller's report. i want to delve into it. i have concerns about the parks alliance, however, they fulfill a very important philanthropic role in helping to keep the parks beautiful i think there were some things that got out of hand, but hopefully that has been remedied in going back to the issues with mr. nuru and also what supervisor chan was subjected to was outrageous and

i -- it's something that really needs to be looked at. i understand the concerns of people. i understand, aaron. i'm sorry, supervisor peskin. >> chairman: that's okay, larry. >> with the $10,000 limit, however, i'm not opposed to it, but i'd really like to take a look at it. both vanita and i are looking at this from the outside. we were not apart of that commission yet. we don't have the authority to call phil ginsburg and ask him about some of these issues. i'm sure, as i'm going through this process, but not as a sitting commissioner. as a sitting commissioner, i think it gives you a different

type of authority. and, i'd like to work along with the president of the commission. i know he's got a lot of experience. he's been there a long time. i know him. i respect him and i want to delve in. >> chairman: thank you, mr. griffin, or larry if i may as i usually do when i get to see you at lunch outside of the city hall. and appreciate your comments. and just do want to say to a great extent, the parks alliance is basically an off chute of the department. it is the 22 employees who, by the way -- actually, it's more than that. 24 or 25 or 26 employees that the parks alliance have are living off the fat of your land. so as far as i'm concerned, they are, in essence, employees of the rec and park departments for all intensive purposes.

we will deal with that on another day, but thank you for your opens with that. and with that, i'll turn it over to supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. and, mr. griffin, i heard so many great things about you and i've heard so much about you as well. i do have the same question that i had for ms. louie really is what is your approach to hold. i think you already answered some of that but when you are on that dayus in just kind of feeling with the staff and their presentation, presenting facts and which park to renovate and all that, what is your approach to hold them accountable and how do you make sure that their decision making process is transparent to you and to the public?

>> by asking questions and getting to the bottom of those questions and getting a real answer, not the answer they may think i want to hear. i want to hear the facts. and that's the only way i believe i can hold people accountable. i've been on the commission before. i was also on the fire commission before. i think that our role is civilian oversight. well, this isn't civilian. i'm going back to the fire commission, but it is civilian oversight. we're there to protect the public. one thing that i really need to get into and look at is the strategic plan i've seen referred to a couple of times. i haven't seen it yet and i want to read that strategic plan. i think that would give me a lot of insight into where the department has said it's going. hopefully it's going in that

direction and if it's deviating somewhere, the questions again. and i hope that answers your question, supervisor. i don't know another way to hold them accountable. sit in a corner and no computer for a week. i don't know. >> supervisor chan: thank you. i think that is essentially the job of the members of the board as well at the board of supervisors that we cannot ask for more than just keep on asking questions. i do agree with that approach. i think all too often the problem stems from not asking the questions at all and just stance in projects and programming not just for rec and park but just across from

city departments. so i appreciate that approach. from where i stand today, i am in support of your both of your appointments. i think that given where we're at, both of your experience, both of you, your experiences and your just i think they -- the interest to serve bodes well for you and i look forward to seeing your appointments through and look forward to working with you and asking rec and park questions. so, thank you so much. thank you, chair peskin. >> thank you very much, supervisor. >> chairman: thank you, mr. griffin, a.k.a. "larry" and thank you supervisor chan. why don't we go to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to

comment on items three and/or four? >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24836130377, then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. we currently have six callers on the line for public comment. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> good morning. and, with respect to supervisor peskin, chan, and mandelman. my name is harry all. brother of betty ann ah.

i have sent in an e-mail of my letter of support for ms. louie. i urge you to advance and approve mayor london breed's appointment of vanita louie to the san francisco recreation and park commission. vanita would be a tremendous addition to the commission and their governing and maintaining the parks and recreation facilities. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. and, sorry for your loss 20 years ago. next speaker, please. >> hi. yes. to chairman peskin and supervisor chan and supervisor mandelman, my name is richard swat and i am a retired nurse from san francisco general for 40 years and after retirement, i became president of the chinatown rotary.

so i'm here to speak. i have known vanita for a number of years, over eight years and i just wanted to say that she would be an incredible person to be on that board. i've seen her up close. her passion for san francisco for community and specifically for the chinatown community and she is just, well, she's incredibly committed. she's hardworking and i want to emphasize hardworking and very innovative. she has a thirst for fairness and i've seen her up close her eagerness to meet and to learn and to find resolutions. she's a person that really wants to focus on cooperation and transparency. and, especially, that's brought up in the many months about port smith square and japantown peace center and the tea garden

and all that's going on there and she really is one that sees the public benefit and that's the focus she's with. she's all about renovation and alliance and cooperation and transparency and i really think that she would be an incredible addition and i'm here to support her and thank you for your time. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, supervisors. my name is irene riley. i'm calling to support ms. -- so sorry. -- vanita louie's appointment to rec and park commission. she will be a great candidate

to be a great commissioner for the rec and park. >> chairman: thank you, ms. riley. and i saw you the other day and hope you're well. next speaker, please. >> my name is faye tam. i live in district one. i live in district one and i'm 72 years old. >> chairman: ms. tam, can you turn down your -- >> i thank you for the new goldman center. >> chairman: ms. tam, can you turn down your computer. if you turn that down, we want have the reverberations.

>> oh, i'm sorry. >> chairman: thank you so much. >> okay. and -- >> chairman: turn down your computer, ms.tam. go ahead, ms.tam. go ahead. >> okay. she believes vanita is a pickle ball player and i'm a tennis player. >> chairman: vanita is a yoga practice player and a pickle ball player, these are true facts. >> and she believes in fitness and she will be wonderful as a great support for the need for port smith square project and i'm in favor and so are the

members of the rotary club of san francisco chinatown. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> chairman: we can hear you, mr. pillpell. >> david pillpell again. thank you. so this is on items three and four taken together? is that correct? >> chairman: that is correct. >> i do not know ms. louie yet, but i think she did a fine job in answering questions and it sounds like she has a wealth of experience she would bring to the commission. i just had a couple of notes in general. i would hope that both appointees and for that matter, all members of the rec and park commission would note the requirements and responsibilities under charter sections 4.113, 16.107, and

admin code section 2a 117 and the rec and park code which is not that big or long, for example, the 4.113 requirement about structures in parks and use of park property and all that since that came up recently in connection with the ferris wheel project. i think it would be useful to rotate the commission officers. mark buhl has been president of that commission for a long time and i think it would be useful to have other members serve as president and vice president, no offense intended to mr. buhl. also, the board of supervisors is amend administrative code section 10 high pressure 103 contributions or gifts to a public vote and adjust the thresholds there for donations, gifts, etc. and, finally, on

item four, i strongly support this appointment. i too have known larry griffin for many years and his city and political experience and history would serve us well and i look forward to him and for that matter, both individuals serving on the rec and park commission. thank you for listening. >> chairman: thank you, mr. pillpell. next speaker, please. >> hi. good morning. good morning. this is gloria chan and i am a long time friend of ms. louie. and in my professional career and in my personal life. i've known her to be a very strong community advocate, you know, participating and supporting community in many neighborhoods including chinatown, richmond, and sunset. you know, i've always known ms.

louie to be, you know, a person of great integrity and she is always thought to voice her concerns on issues that she -- that are close to her heart and she takes a great value in supporting the asian immigrant community. but i also know that she's somebody who will support equity issues because that's very important to her and she's very inclusive of our san francisco community and i'm really just excited that she's given this opportunity to continue to serve in the city of san francisco. so i definitely wish our two appointments all the best, you know, and i'm very excited. i look forward to being able to work with them. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, gloria. good to hear from you. next speaker, please.

>> good morning, chair peskin, supervisor chan and supervisor mandelman. i'm a resident in district six and i'm calling in to support vanita louie's appointment to the recreation and parks commission. i know vanita very we're a nonprofit organization that works in the fight against hepatitis b and liver cancer and vanita served as a board member and utilizes her skills. it's important because one in twelve asian american and pacific islander adults are chronically infected with hepatitis b and it's also known as the silent killer. if left untreated, it can create liver cancer. and vanita is great and is a hard worker and knows how to mobilize against a disease that affects the a.p.i. community and i believe her past trend in the community will benefit the

community as a whole. and i'm excited to see her serve in that capacity and i am excited to see the continued representation of the a.a.p.i. community here in san francisco. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on items three or four? >> clerk: i believe we have three additional speakers at this time. >> chairman: next speaker, please. >> hello, this is eva lee from the chinatown merchant association. i would like to strongly recommend vanita louie. i've known her for many years. she's creative and hardworking and resourceful. and supervisor, i just saw you the other day at the autumn moon festival and we really need the revitalization of our

area and i certainly look forward to the renovation of port smith square and i know vanita would do a good job in helping in that effort. she's very passionate about her community and i can't say enough about her. as you know, doing the festival it's a lot of hard work going through all these years and i'm sure that i know vanita will be the type of person like me that really is committed to the community. so i really hope that you will support this recommendation and place vanita on the park and rec. she'll do a fantastic job for you guys. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, eva. and thank you for yet another successful autumn moon festival. next speaker, please. >> hello supervisors.

supervisor chair peskin, supervisor chan, mandelman. i'm also on boards of many things. but anyway i want to post my support for vanita louie. i think everybody who's known her for such a long time. people who know vanita, she's a problem solver and as a commissioner and i believe also a strong business and now what it's like not to get a paycheck every two weeks and i think knowing that a commissioner is with the people and out with the people like vanita is at all these events and board

meetings that i've seen her at. i truly support vanita louie to be one of the park commissioners on the park and rec. thank you very much and thank you, vanita, and larry for volunteering to be a public servant. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, steven, i mean commissioner lee. next speaker, please. >> good morning chair peskin and supervisor chan and supervisor mandelman. i'm in full support of vanita louie. i've known vanita for the past several years. we both have strong commitments too. the newly immigrating young children in chinatown. and she continued to volunteer with the young children with

reading sessions to enhance their learning of english and enabled the schools to require laptops and books. enhanced their learning experiences. her love of children continues with the work of the children in residence and day care for women in transition from abuse, sexual assault and homelessness. vanita has provided a lot of fun loving arts and crafts for the young children in transition throughout these recent years. much of her volunteer commitments are consistent with the major component of the mission of the rec and parks department. and as mick o'zario was testifying she was a leader on the hepatitis board for the bay area, as the former chair of that board, i want to emphasize that her leadership and her ability to bring people together and to help educate the larger community about the consequences of hepatitis b and

liver disease that results if it's not taken care of. vanita has also for many years contributed in the chinatown rotary club as places like community and during the past 18 months of this pandemic, she has assisted with the distribution of foods ppp spleeus. as you heard from her presentation, she is a native san franciscan and comes from a family of leaders in chinatown. >> chairman: thank you for your testimony. you've reached your time limit. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on these two items? >> clerk: we are just double checking. there is one more caller. >> chairman: next speaker, please. >> yes, hi, my name is stuart wong. i'm a community health

advocate. i fully support and endorse vanita's recommendation to the park and rec commission. she's had active participation and communication in many programs. i recently recruited vanita. she's a very active member in the api community ask is involved in many organizations and as a san francisco native will bring her knowledge and experience to the park and rec commission. she understands the balance and the needs of the residents and visitors in using our parks. she's keenly aware of the responsibilities of the commission and maintains rec and park for residents and users. i'm proud and wholeheartedly ready to support vanita's appointment to the park and rec commission. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. are there any other members of

the public? going once. >> clerk: we have one more call that just popped up. >> chairman: all right. >> this is larry. thank you very much. my name is larry yee. chair peskin, vice chair mandelman and to member connie chan. i'm the president of the chinese company. i grew up here in chinatown and also was born in chinese hospital. i played throughout the parks here when i was young and i continued into my young adult so i know what vanita has done and i've known their family for over 20 years and they're a

hardworking and i have known vanita's family and her husband and i truly support her no, ma'am nomination as the rec and park commissioner and we continue to break the glass ceilings for women. i'm very proud of her and very proud to be here to say. i am speaking to the rules committee that please voter in and we're looking forward to working with her in the community and this coming four years, actually. so on item number three, on item number four, larry griffin, i have worked with him as a union member for over twelve years. we have sat side by side fighting for the working class,

the economic injustice that happened so, he's an excellent choice as well. so you have two great nominees. i hope you vote them in in this coming full board meeting. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you. are there any other members of the public after commissioner yee on items three and four? >> clerk: there are no more callers in line to speak at this time. >> chairman: all right. public comment is closed. thank you to the members of the public who testified and to the two appointees. good to see you both again and look forward to working with you in your tenure has members of rec and parks commission and every once in awhile i do associate myself with the words of the member of the public

david pillpell who i think admonitions were good in this instance. so heed those admonitions please and, colleagues, i would suggest that inso far as based on the proceedings today and pursuant to charter section 300 subsection 18 that this committee and the board do not want to exercise their authority to reject these appointments that we table these two items. i would like to make a motion to table items three and four, on that motion, mr. clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to table item numbers three and four, [roll call] the motion to table the matters

is adopted without objection. >> chairman: we are adjourned. thank you all. welcome back.

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49?

>> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪]

>> you're watching quick bite, the show that has san francisco. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> we're here at one of the many food centric districts of san francisco, the 18th street corridor which locals have affectionately dubbed the castro. a cross between castro and gastronomic. the bakery, pizza, and dolores park cafe, there is no end in sight for the mouth watering food options here. adding to the culinary delights is the family of business he which includes skylight creamery, skylight and the 18 raisin. >> skylight market has been here since 1940.

it's been in the family since 1964. his father and uncle bought the market and ran it through sam taking it over in 1998. at that point sam revamped the market. he installed a kitchen in the center of the market and really made it a place where chefs look forward to come. he created community through food. so, we designed our community as having three parts we like to draw as a triangle where it's comprised of our producers that make the food, our staff, those who sell it, and our guests who come and buy and eat the food. and we really feel that we wouldn't exist if it weren't for all three of those components who really support each other. and that's kind of what we work towards every day.

>> valley creamery was opened in 2006. the two pastry chefs who started it, chris hoover and walker who is sam's wife, supplied all the pastries and bakeries for the market. they found a space on the block to do that and the ice cream kind of came as an afterthought. they realized the desire for ice cream and we now have lines around the corner. so, that's been a huge success. in 2008, sam started 18 reasons, which is our community and event space where we do five events a week all around the idea of bringling people closer to where the food comes from and closer to each other in that process. >> 18 reasons was started almost four years ago as an educational arm of their work. and we would have dinners and a few classes and we understood there what momentum that people wanted this type of engagement and education in a way that allowed for a more in-depth

conversation. we grew and now we offer -- i think we had nine, we have a series where adults learned home cooking and we did a teacher training workshop where san francisco unified public school teachers came and learned to use cooking for the core standards. we range all over the place. we really want everyone to feel like they can be included in the conversation. a lot of organizations i think which say we're going to teach cooking or we're going to teach gardening, or we're going to get in the policy side of the food from conversation. we say all of that is connected and we want to provide a place that feels really community oriented where you can be interested in multiple of those things or one of those things and have an entree point to meet people. we want to build community and we're using food as a means to that end. >> we have a wonderful organization to be involved with obviously coming from buy right where really everyone is treated very much like family. coming into 18 reasons which

even more community focused is such a treat. we have these events in the evening and we really try and bring people together. people come in in groups, meet friends that they didn't even know they had before. our whole set up is focused on communal table. you can sit across from someone and start a conversation. we're excited about that. >> i never worked in catering or food service before. it's been really fun learning about where things are coming from, where things are served from. >> it is getting really popular. she's a wonderful teacher and i think it is a perfect match for us. it is not about home cooking. it's really about how to facilitate your ease in the kitchen so you can just cook. >> i have always loved eating food. for me, i love that it brings me into contact with so many wonderful people. ultimately all of my work that i do intersects at the place where food and community is. classes or cooking dinner for

someone or writing about food. it always come down to empowering people and giving them a wonderful experience. empower their want to be around people and all the values and reasons the commitment, community and places, we're offering a whole spectrum of offerings and other really wide range of places to show that good food is not only for wealthy people and they are super committed to accessibility and to giving people a glimpse of the beauty that really is available to all of us that sometimes we forget in our day to day running around. >> we have such a philosophical mission around bringing people together around food. it's so natural for me to come here. >> we want them to walk away feeling like they have the tools to make change in their lives.

whether that change is voting on an issue in a way that they will really confident about, or that change is how to understand why it is important to support our small farmers. each class has a different purpose, but what we hope is that when people leave here they understand how to achieve that goal and feel that they have the resources necessary to do that. >> are you inspired? maybe you want to learn how to have a patch in your backyard or cook better with fresh ingredients . or grab a quick bite with organic goodies. find out more about 18 reasons by going to 18 reasons.org and learn about buy right market and creamery by going to buy right market.com. and don't forget to check out our blog for more info on many of our episodes at sf quick bites.com. until next time, may the fork be with you. ♪♪ ♪♪

>> so chocolaty. mm. ♪♪ >> oh, this is awesome. oh, sorry. i thought we were done rolling. ♪♪ ♪♪ >> thank you for coming to the talent dance performance and talent show. [ applause ] >> today's performance and talent show. ♪♪

>> public recreation has every bit of the talent and every bit of the heart and soul of anything that any families are paying ten times for. >> you were awesome.

i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today. >> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering.

without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do this. it's important to understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should

give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is nice. no rain. beautiful san francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center so come >> my name is andrea, i work as

a coordinator for the city attorney's office in san francisco. a lot of it is working with the public and trying to address their public records request and trying to get the information for their office. i double majored in political science and always tried to combine both of those majors. i ended up doing a combination of doing a lot of communication for government. i thought it would connect both of my studies and what was i was interested in and show case some of the work that government is doing. >> i work for the transportation agency known as muni and i'm a senior work supervisor. >> i first started as a

non-profit and came to san francisco and started to work and i realized i needed to work with people. this opportunity came up by way of an executive fellowship. they had a program at mta to work in workforce development type project and i definitely jumped on that. i didn't know this was something that i wanted to do. all i knew is that i wanted to help people and i wanted to empower others. >> the environment that i grew up that a lot of women were just stay-at-home moms. it wasn't that they didn't have work, but it was cheaper to stay home and watch the kids instead of paying pricey day care centers. >> my mom came from el salvador during the civil war. she worked very hard. when she came here and limited

in english, she had to do a service job. when i was born and she had other kids, it was difficult for her to work because it was more expensive for her to be able to continue to work in a job that didn't pay well instead of staying at home and being able to take care of us. >> there isn't much support or advocacy for black women to come in and help them do their jobs. there also aren't very many role models and it can be very intimidating and sometimes you feel uncomfortable and unsure of yourself and those are the reasons exactly why you need to do it. when i first had the opportunity, i thought that's not for me. my previous role was a project manager for a biotech start up. i thought how do i go from technology to working in government.

thinking i didn't know about my skills, how am i going to fit in and doing that kind of work. thinking you have to know everything is not what people expect have you, but they expect you to ask questions when you don't know and that's important. >> my mom was diagnosed with cancer. that was really difficult. she encouraged me to go to school because in case anything happened i would be able to protect myself. i wanted to be in oncology. i thought going to school it would set me for the trajectory and prepare me for my life. >> we need the hardships to some of the things that are going to ultimately be your strength in the future. there is no way to map that out and no way to tell those things. you have to do things on your own and you have to

experience and figure out life. >> you don't have to know what you are going to do for the rest of your life when you are in college or high school because there are so many things to do. i would encourage you to try to do everything that you are remotely interested. it's the best time to do it. being a young woman with so many opportunities, just go for it and try everything.

>> supervisor melgar: welcome to the september 13, 2021 meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am joined by supervisors dean preston and aaron peskin and

clerk erica major. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, madam chair. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and invite public participation in the following ways. public comment will be available on each item in this agenda. channels 26, 79, and sfgovtv are streaming this meeting live. each item will have opportunities for public comment. public comment may be made by calling the public comment line at 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. is 2493-032-2236

then press pound and pound again. when your item of interest comes up, please press star, three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location and turn down your volume on your computer or television.

madam chair? >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, madam clerk. hopefully that will be the longest stretch that you speak during this meeting. i can tell your voice is strained. now, please call item 1. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. item 1 is an ordinance granting revokable permission to h.v. community association, inc. to occupy and maintain the irrigation system, sidewalks, curbs, and ramps for a.d.a.-compliant passenger loading, and a portion of a retaining wall footing, with all such encroachments located generally along portions of fairfax ave. acacia avenue,

ironwood way, catalina street, and middle point road fronting hunters view phase 1, 1101 fairfax ave. and making findings. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. we have mr. wu here to make his presentation. >> thank you, president melgar.

[inaudible] -- by the city in these communities over many decades has resulted in aging obsolete infrastructure. to restore public benefits to hope s.f. communities, new streets and sidewalks were created along with other community infrastructure benefits. we are coming before you today to ensure the continued priority of these s.f. hope benefits. >> good afternoon, chair melgar and supervisors preston and peskin. cindy [inaudible], mohcd, project manager, working on hunters view on all of the phases. this is the first development

to begin construction and completed first phase of construction. the picture to the left is of the original hunters view site. there were 51 public housing buildings on approximately 23 acres of land. the site was unconnected to city street grids and services and did not have dedicated resident services. when the entire hope s.f. revitalization is complete, there will be one for one replacement based on the impact existing unit type configuration since 2005. this means if there were 63 three-bedrooms on-site when the program began, there will be 63 three bedrooms on-site for the whole project. the project will include affordable housing and market rate housing, and on the map, the affordable housing is in

the red, and the market rate housing is in orange. to complete the revitalization, the development will and has occurred in three phases. next slide, please. this ordinance before you today is specific to phase one, which was completed in 2013. the complete phase one included a new park named promontory park and included public services and utilities. it is a mix of 80 public housing units and 26 tax credit unit and one manager's unit and an office for a dedicated service provider [inaudible]. next slide, please. jason and i first came to this body in april 2021 for phase

one, street acceptance and public service easement. the [inaudible] to an ordinance in order to allow for a waiver for the annual assessment fee. this extended the legislative timeline with a 30-day hold, although the master major encroachment permit ordinance was introduced in conjunction with the two pieces of phase two legislation. we are making this final request related to the phase one street acceptance through this master major commitment ordinance which assigns maintenance responsibility. to maintain phase one encroachment, including sidewalks, irrigation, one a.d.a. ramp curb, and a retaining wall. as previously stated, the ordinance includes a waiver of

the annual assessment fee. because hunters view phase one included a significant public benefit, this fee is normally waved for projected with development agreements, which hunters view did not qualify as a primary hope s.f. project. it is significant to know that hunters view includes significant public benefit in all phases, not just phase one. this shows the areas affected by the ordinance, the street generally located, portions of fairfax avenue, acacia avenue, ironwood way, catalina street, and middle point road fronting

hunters view phase one. so this concludes my presentation, and colleagues and staff are here to answer questions. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much. do any of you have any questions, colleagues? okay. i just have one question, and that is how do we pick the names for these streets? >> the streets -- those street names were selected in the preplanning, before 2013 and 20 -- 2004, and it basically -- a lot of the residents, the developer, and mohcd met with the residents, and a lot of names for people came up and various different things, but to keep it most democratic, those names were picked for trees. >> supervisor melgar: okay.

thank you. okay. if there's no other questions or comments, colleagues, we can go ahead and have public comment on that. >> clerk: thank you. arthur's checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have not done so already, please press star, three to enter the queue, and if you have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted, and arthur, if you can let me know what you're looking like for callers. >> operator: madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor melgar: may i go ahead, madam clerk? seeing that there's no other public callers, public comment is now closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this item out of committee with a positive

recommendation? i see supervisor peskin. please take roll. >> clerk: on the motion by supervisor peskin to recommend item number one -- [roll call] >> clerk: the item passes unanimously. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. please call item 2. >> clerk: item 2 is an ordinance amending the planning

code to [inaudible]. >> supervisor peskin: let me start out by thanking you and members of the board for starting the landmark designation process for what i thought was one of three diego rivera works in the city, but the fact sheet that i commend to all of you actually says

there are four. i don't know what the fourth is, but there's this one at the art institute on russian hill at 800 chestnut street that diego rivera and his crew did in 1931, and then, of course, the pan american fresco that was in the gallery at city college and now is in sfmoma for all to review. that was originally out on treasure island and was meant to be movable, unlike this one that was done in situ and remains in its original spot, and then, there was the one at the pacific stock exchange, the city club building that's also

under going renovation, and i know that supervisor melgar has been working on getting the pan american fresco designated, but i just wanted to start with some thanks both for this item and the next item, which hasn't been called that we will get to in a little bit, for the really truly outstanding work for the planning department staff. and i believe pilar [inaudible] did both of these reports. my wife was, like, are you still reading that thing, like, an hour later? but both of these reports are just incredible documents. they are very painstakingly researched, and there's so much in here. i was -- when i first looked at

it, i was, like, i think they made a mistake. the period of significance for -- of historic significance, you would think, would be 1931, when diego rivera and some other outstanding artists are spoken about in here did their work. but no, the period goes to 1974 because of the latinx-chicanox movement in san francisco and includes people like michael rios. so i called michael from the board of supervisors this morning to let him know that he is in an official city document, and i never knew that he actually went to the san francisco art institute, and i thought that was a mistake, but no, he actually did go there

and was actually already an accomplished artist. and the history of the art institute is also spoken to in this document, and depending on how you want to look at it, it is much older than the 90-year-old fresco showing the building of a city that rivera is. it was either 105 years old, or if you want the original incarnation, it's now getting onto 130 years old and is a storied institution in itself. it's also an institution that has, not for the first time, bumped into some financial difficulties, which was what precipitated about a year ago our concerns that there was

consideration of collateralizing the diego rivera mural by chopping it out of the building and selling it. i'm pleased to say that the art commission that's under new leadership, they're not contemplating that anymore, and we obviously all are deeply invested in having this storied institution survive, and hopefully once again thrive. the city actually landmarked the artwork in 1976.

i believe it's in pilar's report, and it was number 85 from 1977, so i got my numbers totally wrong, but i believe that landmark designation, one way or another, totally protects the murals one way or another. even though the murals are not specifically called out in the 1977 landmark, and they are referenced in the landmark case report, the reality is in order to move them out of there, you would have to rip that building out or tear its roof off and lift them out, which in and of itself would have required a

certificate of appropriateness from the historic preservation commission. we are on the spree of landmarking every rivera work in san francisco, so this will uphold that status and certainly that master artist known for his very lefty work. it's kind of interesting, some of his mentees had their works painted over in the 1940s. as a matter of fact, on friday, i got an e-mail, last e-mail from the art institution, saying that they uncovered works of a student that painted a woman named susan scherr with

work that rivera did, that they just uncovered and restored. all of this is open to the public. anybody can walk-through the front entrance of 800 chestnut street and into the diego rivera gallery and see all of that. but the reason i'm speaking a bit to the art institute's current state of affairs is there's interest in the art institute not in blocking this proposal but in perhaps making some sensitive changes to the building that diego rivera is in and open it to the street. and my staff and i and the city attorney are working on some language that would do that. that's actually not a change to this landmark designation. it really would be a change to

the 1977 era landmark number 85 ordinance, but i do want to show the art institute that we are interested. so at the end of public comment and after we hear from miss la valle, i am going to respectfully ask for a one-week continuance so that the city attorney and the staff supervisor and i can work things out. so that is my long opening statement. if you have not read this case report, it talks about how rivera was wooed to san

francisco and how he got to come here. he was initially paid $1500 for the job, although it looks like he got another $1,000 along the way, and then, like now, the united states gave mr. rivera a very hard time getting the visa to do the project. and if it were not for the intervention of a good friend, the u.s. ambassador to mexico, he would not have been able to do that. so with that, i will shut up, but, madam chair, if you can tell us what the fourth diego rivera work is, i would love to know.

>> supervisor melgar: i think miss la valle would know. so with that, miss lavalle, are you ready to make your presentation? >> i am. i do have a couple of slides to share or pull up, if that's possible. [inaudible] >> sorry. the fourth is not in san francisco, but it's in the bay area. it's bay hall in berkeley, and it was painted at the same time as the work at the art institute. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. >> thank you very much.

pilar lavalle, planning department staff. the making of a fresco showing the building of a city was painted on-site between may 1 and may 31, 1931, at the san francisco art institute, then known as the california school of fine art. the fresco occupies the north wall of the gallery now known as diego rivera gallery. as supervisor peskin mentioned, the 1926 building was designated a san francisco landmark number 85 in 1977. next slide, please. the -- the board's resolution

initiating landmark designation was heard by the historic preservation commission on september 2, 2021. they made the finding that it is culturally and historically significant in a number of the following ways. first is the work of the preeminent mexican artist diego rivera. also with its association with work at the san francisco art institution and also for its association with san francisco's latinx and chicanx

community. next slide, please. and that completes my presentation unless you have any questions. thank you very much. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, miss lavalle. i look forward to reading the report. i only skimmed it, and now it's going to be bedtime reading for me. thank you, supervisor peskin. so if there are no further comments or questions, colleagues, i think we can take public comment on this item. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. arthur is checking to see if we have callers in the queue. if you have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue, and if you have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. arthur, can you let us know how many folks we have? >> operator: yes, we have two callers in the queue. >> clerk: if you could unmute the first caller, please.

>> good afternoon, chair melgar and supervisors. this is [inaudible] on behalf of reuben, junius, and rose on behalf of the art institute. [inaudible] as a consequence, the university of california paid off san francisco art institute's loan and has taken title to 800 chestnut campus. the [inaudible] fresco and specifically the endowment in place of the fresco is an important piece of the art institute's recovery plan and consistent with the goals of the landmark ordinance. san francisco would have ownership of the artwork in

perpetuity. included in your package is a letter from me with images showing the current condition of the gallery's street frontage. it's a largely blank and landscape covered wall. currently, the only access is through the school's courtyard. any philanthropist or donor would like to have access from the street. we appreciate supervisor peskin and his staff for working collaboratively with us forming an amendment that would make possible a direct entry from

chestnut street, subject to approval by the historic preservation commission. we look forward to hearing the item next week -- >> supervisor peskin: i just want to make sure that mr. freton's current statement and letter on behalf of the art institute that is part of our packet and dated september 8, 2021 supersedes and replaces his more threatening and caustic letter dated august 31, 2021. is that the position of mr. freton and his client? >> supervisor melgar: i don't know about that, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i don't know, but if that is not the case, i would mark it as

written at the h.p.c. >> clerk: arthur, would you unmute that first caller for me? hello, mr. freton? >> hello. sorry about that. yes, the -- the letter that we sent in advance of this hearing does supersede the prior letter that we sent to the h.p.c. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. i'm glad we've cleared that up. do we have other public commenters on this item? >> clerk: yes, we have one more caller. if you could unmute the next caller, please. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> supervisor melgar: we can hear you. >> great. it's david pillpel.

just want to recognize this important work. we are blessed to have such important landmarks in the city, and it's a shame we haven't been marking it until this point, but we are doing it now. i share the thoughts expressed by the previous caller about the art institute. i'm sure their financial issues and access can be worked out over time, but i think the important thing for the public is that the mural be preserved and access be provided in an appropriate way in time, and i support this legislation, and thank you all very much. >> clerk: thank you, and that completes the queue, madam chair. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, madam clerk. supervisor peskin, do you want to make a motion? >> supervisor peskin: i would like to make a motion to continue this item one week, at which time i hope to have

resolved the issues that i previously discussed. >> supervisor melgar: okay. madam clerk, can you please call the roll on that motion? >> clerk: on the motion to continue item number 2 to next week's meeting -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, madam clerk, so we will revisit this next week. will you please call item number 3? >> clerk: yes. item number 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code to design ate ingleside terraces sundial and sundial park, assessor's parcel block number 6917-b, lot number 001, situated with entrada court, as a landmark under article 10 of

the planning code. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, call 415-655-0001, enter meeting i.d. 2493-032-2236, then pound, and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue, and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before you begin to speak. madam chair? >> supervisor melgar: thank you. i need to disclose that this project is within 500 feet of my family's home. it's actually significantly less than that, so i need to recuse myself from discussing or chairing this item, and i have asked supervisor peskin to

recuse me. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> clerk: on the motion to remove chair melgar from this item -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have two ayes. >> supervisor preston: thank you, madam clerk. the motion passes, and supervisor melgar, chair melgar, has now left the meeting for this item and is discussed from this item. supervisor peskin, would you like to make any opening remarks before we hear from planning staff. >> supervisor peskin: i would. >> supervisor preston: the floor is yours. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, acting chair preston. so first, i just want to explain because it's a little odd for the public to understand that we are presumed

as a matter of state law to have a conflict when there is a land use matter within 500 feet of real property that we own. whether it has a positive, neglect, or no financialing impact at all -- or no financial impact at all to any property we own. this was originally heard by chair melgar's predecessor, chair yee and passed in december 2020, right before supervisor melgar became a supervisor, and worked its way through the historic preservation commission. i want to say as enthusiastically as i did with the last item, the staff report prepared by planning department

staff is really another excellent piece of work, and if you live in ingleside terraces or you don't live in ingleside terraces, there is some really interesting information given there about the original architect there and supervisor preston. this gentleman, leonard, actually designed the society building in your district, which has always been one of the most curious buildings in san francisco and has, really, a lot of things, including something that was quite unique, in that it was built around a racetrack. it was one of the first if not

the first subdivision that had covenants and deed restrictions that just were overtly racist on their face, excluding people of african, chinese, japanese, descent from leasing or owning property in that subdivision. but the sundial, which has always been a cool feature, which was a stone feature, even though the developers sold it as the largest sundial in the world, even though it's not and i'm honored to be the sponsor of it along with former

president of the board of supervisors and district 7 supervisor norman yee. so with that, i'll turn it over to francis melon, planning department staff. >> thank you. the h.p.c. unanimously recommended landmark designation on april 7, 2021. next slide, please. the ingleside terrace's sundial and sundial park are located within the entrada park

[inaudible] during the period. as detailed in this study of the city's resident park neighborhoods, his torn yeah [inaudible] notes these neighborhoods were called residence parks to [inaudible] their resident studies [inaudible] landscaping guidelines, prohibition of commercial buildings and excluding ownership or occupancy by minority races and ethnicities. next slide, please. the ingleside terraces sundial and sundial park are also significant and distinctive.

finally, the sundial and sundial park are located within the neighborhood and have become a symbol of the community's identity. it has been the site of community gatherings, celebrations, and active as an unsanctioned playground structure for children for decades. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any

questions. thank you. >> supervisor preston: thank you. any further comments or questions, supervisor peskin, before we go to public comment? >> supervisor peskin: no, nothing additional, other than, once again, to -- planning department did a great job on these reports. i know we're throwing a lot of initiations at them, and they're not quick, but they're working their way through. >> supervisor preston: thank you. let's go to public comment. >> clerk: thank you. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to enter the queue, and if you have already done so, please wait until the system has been unmuted. we have six callers and one

caller in the queue. operations, can you put the caller through. >> i assume you can hear me. this is david pillpel. i appreciate the staff work, the research, and noting the good, the bad, the otherwise, the development of the sundial and the racetrack. it's very important san francisco, and it's good to recognize that in this case through a landmark designation. i was also interested in how chair melgar's address would be handled, because i believe she may be living in the home that was formerly occupied by betty and bob landis, great activists

in the city. i believe at least one of them has passed away, maybe both, but they were both great people and just wanted to mention them while i had the opportunity, and just want to support the proposal for designation. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. that was the last caller in the queue. >> that's fine. >> supervisor preston: thank you, madam clerk. and seeing no other callers, public comment on this item is now closed, and unless there are additional comments, i would just like to echo supervisor peskin's thanks to the planning department for work on this and the prior item and also thank supervisor peskin for his on going leadership in bringing these

ordinances before that. so with that, do i have a motion, supervisor peskin, to send this out of committee with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> clerk: on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have two ayes. >> supervisor preston: thank you, madam clerk. the motion passes, and we will now bring chair melgar back into the meeting. madam clerk, if you would advise her so that she can chair the remainder of our agenda. >> clerk: yes, i just texted supervisor melgar, and she will be joining us shortly. thank you for your patience.

there we go. madam chair? >> supervisor preston: with you -- welcome back, madam chair. if we were in chambers, i would hand the gavel over to you. >> supervisor peskin: we almost landmarked your house when you were gone, but then, we thought better. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much. madam clerk, can you please call the next item? >> clerk: yes. item 4 is an ordinance amending the planning code to eliminate the requirement of conditional use authorization for residential care facilities for seven or more people in residential house districts, require conditional use authorization for a change of use or demolition of a

residential care facility and consideration of certain factors in determining whether to grant conditional use authorization and making the appropriate findings. members of the public who would like to make public comment, dial 415-655-0001 and enter meeting i.d. 2493-032-2236, then press pound and pound again. madam chair? >> supervisor melgar: thank you. i know that supervisor mandelman wanted to be here to make some comments, but he was unable to be here. however, i know that supervisor ronen is here, as well. >> supervisors, the item before you today is an ordinance that would establish permanent controls on the conversion of residential care facilities.

these are commonly known as assisted living facilities or board and cares sometimes, and these are facilities that provide both stable housing and essential care for elderly san franciscans and those living with disabilities and chronic illness, including mental illness and addiction. they are something the supervisor feels are essential to the city's broader efforts to prevent and end homelessness for disabled and senior citizens, but unfortunately, we are losing them at a rapid rate at a time that we need more to serve these populations. this is something that we heard in a 2019 report that documented the alarming rate at which we're losing these residential care facilities, and that report as of 2018, san francisco had lost 43 facilities, compared to 2012, which was a loss of 243 beds

over a six-year period. we asked for an update, and sadly, another 11 facilities for a total of another 226 beds. in response to those trends, in 2019, supervisor mandelman proposed and the supervisors enacted controls to [inaudible] back in april of this year and will continue now through october, which is the maximum 24 months allowed for interim controls, and those are set to expire on october 11. supervisors, i think it's well recognized that preserving and expanding the residential supplies will take more than zoning and land use changes. however, we have seen that the traditional oversight and transparency provided to the

interim controls has added to the odds of preserving these facilities. earlier this year, there was a 33-bed facility on broderick street that was actually at risk of closer when the property owner actually indicated their intention not to renew their lease with d.p.h., which was expiring. the national union of health care workers reached out and they were actually successful in negotiating an agreement to extend that lease for another three years, and they reported that having this conditional use requirement on the books was a really useful tool in their efforts to achieve that result, and we're glad that the facility is still on-line. the conditional use that was in place in the interim control is

due to be heard at the planning commission. we believe it's been very helpful in that case. so the ordinance today before you will codify that additional use requirement, so the first -- i just want to go through these changes quickly because we did learn from our experience to make some adjustments how the conditional use is implemented. they would reach out to staff or a number of organizations that are listed in the ordinance. we included the golden gate regional support which provides support for people with

disabilitied, including h.s.a., d.p.h., the long-term care coordinating counsel. the second finding on the impact that a facility has on the neighborhood, that was removed. there's a third finding from the interim controls which remains as the second finding now in the ordinance that does, you know, reference the analysis from these relevant agencies, including the golden gate regional center as to whether there is a sufficient number of beds available in the facility, and it had been a regular question to the commission. additionally, we've added a consideration as to whether it's practically feasible, putting in that term,

practically feasible to the commission, when asking if the facility will be replaced or relocated in the neighborhood. and finally, there's another consideration for the planning commission that would be included here in the ordinance which was not in the interim controls which asked whether the continued operation of the facility is feasible and specifically whether any other likely operators or organizations were contacted who might be interested in operating the site. supervisors, these changes are made to promote changes. again, it's our hope that this gives planning commission and staff more clear direction on the issues that they should be considering when there is a demolition or conversion

proposed, especially for applicants to make it clear that they are expected to do the legwork of seeing if there's anyone else out there to operate the facility before proposing to convert it to something else. supervisors, that is all with respect to the residential care facilities. we would also like to make it easier to create them or expand them, so in this case, this is eliminating a conditional use that's on the books now, expanding a residential area that's more than seven beds, and that's in rh-1 and rh-2 zoning districts. this builds on an ordinance that supervisor mandelman introduced and was passed in 2019 that got rid of the requirement, and that ordinance did help significantly advance a project, as it happens, also

on shotwell street at a different location. that was a 29-bed location that was closed in 2016 but is now being renovated and expanded to a 48-bed facility. because of our 2018 change, it was able to proceed as principally permitted. so in closing, supervisors, and thank you for your time and indulgence, while we still have a lot of work cut out for us to ensure that we're meeting the needs of every san franciscan with respect to residential care, including beyond the realm of land use, this ordinance is intended to make it harder to remove and easier to open and expand residential care facilities in the city, and we respectfully ask for

your support in this exclusion. h.s.h. staff is here, and i'm also here to answer any questions. >> supervisor melgar: thank you for your presentation and for your information on this issue. i'm pleased that we're making progress on one part of this issue that we know so much about. we now have audrey malone here from the planning department, followed by susie smith from the human services agency, and they are going to make brief presentations, so miss malone first. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor melgar. good afternoon, supervisors. audrey malone, planning department staff. the commission's proposed

modifications were as follows: one, to [inaudible] the conditional use requirement for a proposed change of use from or demolition of a residential care facility after three years. two, to encourage the sponsor and other city agencies to continue to seek and support nonland use solutions to alleviate the financial burdens cased by current residential care facilities. three, to only require a conditional use authorization if the facility established locally, and allow other parties that may be relevant to a case to be resulted. that's all for the planning department staff, and if you have any questions, i'm here to answer them. thank you so much. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much for that, miss malone. and now, we have susie smith from the human services agency. miss smith? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i do have a presentation to share with some of the findings

from the report that [inaudible] had referenced earlier. i'm not sure if i can -- i should do that or if that's coming from -- oh, there you go. thank you, john. okay. okay. so briefly, just going to the next slide, wanted to share a little bit of background in terms of the context that we're seeing on the assisted living facilities in san francisco and then update you on the data that we collected since that initial report was released. so on the next slide, the context is that as was mentioned, the study was done by the long-term care coordinating counsel which advises the mayor and the board and the city on policy, planning, and service delivery issues for older adults and people with disabilities, and we were really -- it was

prompted by concern that people in need of assisted living are just unable to procure it for a variety of reasons, and it's particularly difficult for lower income citizens of our city. so we published the report in january 2019 with a few key findings and recommendations and on the next few slides, we go through what those findings were. and the report documents what our systems and staff have known for a long time, which is we're seeing a steady decline in the assisted living summary, and we know that this has happened in residential care facilities for the elderly and adult residential facilities. since 2012, the city has seen a 9% decline in assisted living beds. we've seen a 5% decline in rcfe

beds but a 22% decline in the a.r.f.s or adult residential facilities. this decline has been in facilities that have been traditionally more affordable to san francisco residents. [please stand by]