>> president walton: good afternoon. and welcome to the december 14, 2021 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madame clerk, would you please call the roll? >> thank you, mr. president. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: present. >> supervisor haney: present. >> supervisor mandelman: present. >> supervisor mar: present. >> supervisor melgar: present. >> supervisor peskin: present. >> supervisor preston: present. >> supervisor ronen: present. >> supervisor safai: presente. >> supervisor stefani: present.

>> supervisor walton: present. mr. president, all members are present. >> president walton: thank you. the san francisco board of supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

colleagues, please stand with me and recite the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. and on behalf of the board of supervisors, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgovtv. madame clerk, are there any communications? >> yes, this meeting is accessible remotely via cable cast on sfgovtv award winning channel 26 or viewing the live stream at www.sfgovtv.org. the most efficient way to provide up to two minutes of public comment is to listen to your touch phone connected to

the are remote call in system. throughout the meeting, the telephone number is streaming on your screen. it is 1-415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d., 2499 319 6320 # #. and you will have joined the meeting. you'll hear the discussion, but your line will be muted. once you are ready to get into the queue, that's when you should press star 3 to provide comment and when it is your turn, listen carefully for the prompt that you have been unmuted and then begin speaking your comments. item 37 is general public comment. there are three areas that you will be permitted to speak to. the approval of the meeting minutes as presented for november 9, 2021. the latter section of the agenda which lists matters for adoption

without reference to committee. also matters that are not on the agenda today, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. all other agenda content will have been reported out to the board by an appropriate committee where public comment -- the public comment requirement has been fulfilled. the board of supervisors will accept written correspondence by written mail, if you united states use the address, room 244, san francisco, california, 94102. or by using the e-mail address, bos. in partnership, interpretation will be provided to assist speakers once item 37, general public comment is called. at that time we will have the interpreters introduce themselves and the service they are providing to the public. and lastly, if you are

experiencing any trouble connecting to this meeting remotely, we do have someone on standby in the clerk's office if you call (415) 554-5184. that concludes my communication. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. before we get started, a friendly reminder to mute your microphone. let's go to the approval of meeting minutes. colleagues, today we are approving the meeting minutes from the november 9, 2021 regular board meeting. i don't see anyone on the roster for any changes. with that, i'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor preston. >> clerk: on the minutes, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye.

>> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, without objection the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. madame clerk, let's go to our consent agenda items 1 through 3. >> items 1 through 3, these items are considered to be routine. if a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster, so we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading.

-- unanimously. madame clerk, please call item number 4. >> clerk: item 4 is ordinance to appropriate from the issuance of special tax bonds for the city's improvement area number 2 of the community facilities for the treasure island development project and to place such amount on the controller's reserve. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster, so we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 5. >> item 5 is ordinance to amend the park code to reduce or eliminate fees for admission to and use of certain facilities on park property for veterans and active members of the united states armed forces.

>> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster. we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed. please call item number 6. >> clerk: item 6 is ordinance to waive public works code section 724.1b required for temporary street space occupiy permits on city streets to promote merchandise during the holiday season, saturday. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we'll take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is finally passed unanimously.

item 7 is ordinance to adopt and implement the first amendment to the 2019-2022 memorandum of understanding between the city and the engineering local 39 to revise san francisco public utilities commission wastewater enterprise rules regarding work schedules and shift assignments. >> president walton: thank you, we will take this same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 8. >> ordinance to amend the planning code to revise massage establishment zoning controls. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no one on the roster, we'll take this same house, same call. without objection this is passed unanimously. >> item 9 is ordinance to amend

the planning code to exempt grandfathered medical cannabis dispensaries that convert to cannabis retail uses from neighborhood notification and review requirements and affirm the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we'll take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed unanimously. please call item 10. >> item 10 is ordinance to direct the mayor's office of housing and community development to conduct a disparate impact analysis of granting a priority for veterans who qualify for an affordable housing preference under administrative code chapter 47. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no one on the roster, we'll take this item same house, same call. without objection this ordinance is passed unanimously.

please call item 11 >> item 11, ordinance to amend the campaign and governmental conduct code to expand the definition of interested party to include city contractors, persons seeking to influence city officers and employees, registered contact lobbyists, permit consultants and to prohibit elected officials, department heads and commission from soliciting behested payments from interested parties. >> supervisor safai: sorry, i hit the wrong button, but i will just say in conversations with supervisor peskin, we're going to continue the conversations around this and there are areas we will continue to work on together. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. i believe we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 12. >> clerk: item 12 is ordinance

to amend the administrative code to authorize the sheriff to contract with private individuals and private entities to provide supplemental law enforcement services. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you -- thank you, mr. president. colleagues, as you all know, oftentimes conversations will continue even after first vote. we were contacted by the human resources department, some of the impacted parties requested us to continue to resume the conversation back at the table. we sat down with them and we have some amendments that i've circulated today. we sent an e-mail and also handed them out. essentially, one thing that we talked about with the chief and the sheriff was allowing for this process to -- and program to flow through the police department. this is something that has been in practice in the city for some time. it's something that in terms of the administration of the

program makes sense to me and made sense to the sheriff and the police department. so we moved the memorandum of understanding process up on page 7. that's essentially what you see on the first amendment. and the second amendment and they still will come back to this board within 60 days. the second amendment says that the request will flow through the police department and all parties have agreed to that request now in terms of the administration of the program. so, the first thing i'd like to do is make a motion to duplicate the file. >> president walton: you don't need a motion for that. >> supervisor safai: i'm sorry. i'd like to ask for the file to be duplicated. right, you don't need a motion. and then i would make what i'm going to ask today, we make the amendments on the duplicated file so that will sit here for a second reading on when we come back after recess and that we send the first version out today as was originally proposed so the clock will begin on the

m.o.u. process and on the process for them to put their administrative procedures together so that this program can hit the ground running and there are no additional 30-day plus delay. so i would like to make a motion to amend the duplicated file as proposed and read into the record. may have a second. >> president walton: seconded by supervisor stefani. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president. i wasn't here last week when you all voted on this. as i have shared with supervisor safai, i have misgivings about this legislation. you know, i see what you're doing. you're duplicating the file, we're going to keep working on it and because i requested you were kind enough to include the requirement that they come back it us with policies and

procedures, which i'm looking forward to seeing. and, you know, also keep the right to not approve them if, you know, i don't -- it doesn't do what i'm hoping it will do. so my misgivings are as follows. one, i think we're further privatizing something that, you know, folks should have an expectation of government to keep the safety. i think that in my district, which is a little bit farther out, district 7, what we have is security needs in the commercial corridors of small businesses and i don't think this addresses that. it's very expensive -- the program is expensive for the small guys. this doesn't quite do it. and most importantly, what i worry about is that we are already severely understaffed for both sheriffs and police. and what i worry about is folks working for us and then working

more in the private sector and then coming back to work at 8:00 in the morning, tired, having not slept because they were working and we give them a weapon and, you know, also tell them to now implement the department of justice use-of-force recommendations which means that they have to have good judgment, good analysis when they're tired. so it worries me that we're creating a system that, you know, could harm communities in that way. and so, i understand that some of my issues actually have to do with the original 10b program which is not what is we're voting on. we're voting about the expansion to allow sheriffs to do this as well, but like i said, a lot of those things, i may be assured when this comes back with the policies and procedures so that

whoever is doing the scheduling, you know, if careful not to overschedule somebody so they're not working a 48-hour shift and then go work in the private sector and come back and work at 8:00 in the morning tired. so i will vote for it today, because, you know, you guys voted for it last time and i am looking forward to the next step when the the policies and procedures come back. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor melgar. and for that thoughtful amendment, we did include -- there are two different layers to that. one is in 60 days from the effective date there will be a memorandum of understanding that will be negotiated between the sheriff and the police department. the second is in 90 days, as you had requested, the sheriff will come back with the chief of

police in consultation and present to the board of supervisors the report on describing how the entire program will be administered and implemented. you'll appreciate that amendment and thank you for your thoughtfulness in this program. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walt. i just wanted to clarify in case any of the members of the board thought differently, that the m.o.u., if entered into and for that matter the policies and procedures would not subsequently be voted on by this board. so i just wanted that to be clear. they would just come here for information only. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. obviously, i've spoken at length on this item previously and will not do so again here. i did just want to state that i

will not be voting for the amendments or the item. and i just do want to surface what i think started coming out in the last discussion, but i think in some ways is the bigger issue this item brings up, which is our use of the city of the 10a and 10b program and the extent to which they whether do or do not comply with state law. it continues to be a frustration that the ordinance and a lot of the talk around the ordinance, especially in the media, has attempted to view this as if this is going to provide private retail security to small businesses or big businesses around the city. we cannot do that through a 10a or 10b program and i concerned and what i learned from the last hearing, of we may be doing that. so i'm looking forward to getting more information from the police department about how this program has been used and making sure as we move forward

if this does move forward that we're not operating a new program in violation of state law. so i will leave it at that. and will be opposing both amendments as well as the ordinance today. thank you. >> president walton: thank you sox so much, supervisor preston. on the motion to amend and duplicate it. >> clerk: on the motion, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: no. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: no. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> there are nine ayes and two

nos with walton and preston in dissent. >> vote 9-2, the motion to duplicate passes. item 12 as amended. >> mr. president, did you want to dispose of the duplicate as amended and send it to committee? >> president walton: yes, please, thank you, madame clerk. >> clerk: so that would require a motion and a second and a vote. >> i would rather the duplicated file remain here at the board so we can take the second vote. >> clerk: i'm sorry, can you repeat that? >> supervisor safai: i would prefer that the duplicated file remain here at the board for the second vote. >> then you have to have a committee of the whole. >> president walton: right. so we're going to motion to send the duplicated file back to

committee. >> my bad. >> deputy city attorney. the amendments are not substantive, so they do not require referral to committee. >> president walton: correct, so we can have a motion to send the duplicated file back to committee or a motion to -- >> do we need a motion for it to remain? >> president walton: it can be voted on first reading if it's not substantive. >> good. that's what we did, right? >> president walton: got it. madame clerk? >> clerk: then we'll take a vote, mr. president, on the duplicate as amended. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: no. >> supervisor ronen: no. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: no. >> supervisor chan: aye.

>> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> there are eight ayes and three nos with supervisors preston, ronen and walton in the dissent. >> thank you, by vote 8-3, the motion to approve item 12 as amended passes. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: just a point of order. i'm sorry -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, mr. president, that was a vote on the duplicate as amended. >> president walton: duplicate as amended, my apologies. >> just a point of order, where is the original without amendments? >> the original, number 12, is before this body now. >> supervisor safai: okay, good. >> clerk: on final passage, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk, on the original right now? >> clerk: on item 12, supervisor

peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: no. >> supervisor ronen: no. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: no. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> there are eight ayes and three nos with supervisors preston, ronen and walton in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. by vote 8-3, the original item 12 passes. madame clerk, please call item 13. >> item 13 is ordinance amending the police code to establish a portable paid sick leave system for domestic workers and to require hiring entities that do

not directly provide p.s.l. to provide policies policies to democrat workers using the portable system. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, colleagues. before us we have the domestic workers equal access to paid sick leave ordinance. drafted in partnership with the domestic workers coalition. it is the first of its kind in the nation and establishes a portable benefit system for domestic workers to easily access paid sick leave from multiple employers. under current law, all san francisco workers are entitled to paid sick time which accrues based on hours work. domestic workers, however, often work sporadic schedules for multiple individual employers which makes it almost impossible for them to accrue enough sick time from any one employer. although they have the right to paid sick leave, in reality, very few are able to access the

benefit. this program will be operated by the office of economic and workforce development, which will convene with advisor group to design the details of the program. this will allow the system to be designed by domestic workers to meet their specific needs. built into the legislation are several baseline requirements for the program. it will ensure that hours are tracked as well as net pay rates and calculate the accrued paid sick leave hours, coordinate the transfer of paid sick leave payments and minimize burdens for the worker and employer. based on initial conversations with stakeholders, i expect the program to function through a phone app that can be easily accessed by employers and employees. last week, this ordinance was heard before the budget and finance committee where it received unanimous recommendation from committee members and today i have the -- i hope to have the support of the full board. this is a ground breaking

ordinance in that it's the first of its kind focusing on the original dig workers to allow the accumulation of hours across several employers, which is really sort of the direction that low-wage work is going in this country. so this could -- if this works, which we imagine that it will, it would be replicated in many other industries as well, so we're very excited as usual to be the first to advance workers' rights into the city. i want to thank my co-sponsors starting with melgar and walton, supervisors, preston, chan, haney and mar. and my deep appreciation to the domestic workers coalition,

senior council for the domestic worker alliance, the founder of the [speaking spanish] and my office, santiago for his hard work and also want to thank the city attorney's office for their incredible work and for former city attorney dennis herrera even going as far to hire outside tax council which we do in drafting legislation to get this right. so very grateful for all the work there. and finally, and most importantly, my deepest thanks to domestic workers here in san francisco and around the world for their tireless support of our homes, our families and our economies. thank you so much, colleagues. appreciate it. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president walton. i wanted to start by saying

thank you so much to supervisor ronen for your hard work and your thoughtfulness in seeing this problem and breaking it down into like actionable operationible steps which sometimes we miss, when we're talking about big things, but i really appreciate your due diligence and attention to detail in this work and to your staff as well. this is something that is near and dear to my heart. when my family came to the u.s. from el salvador, we did all these jobs, cleaned houses, offices and did all these immigrant jobs. i remember my parents not being able to get sick. even if they were sick, you know, you couldn't -- otherwise we would have no food on the table. so this is transformative for families. i am really looking forward to us being sort of that ground

breaking place where this starts, particularly in the bay area, because i know that a lot of these workers work in san francisco. they work in alameda county, women clean houses in berkeley and san mateo. and we also have folks who do nanny-share, where a worker is taking care of children in three family's homes. landscapers. it's almost all immigrant labor. so i think that, you know, folks have been taking care of people in san francisco for decades and it's about time that we take care of them. and it's an issue of worker justice and i thank you all for considering this and i'm looking forward to being implementible and being republicanly in other places. >> i wanted to thank supervisor

ronen and other staff and the california domestic workers coalition, the grassroots domestic workers groups here in the city, and also hand-in-hand, domestic workers employer network on this truly rights policy to support the most essential workers in our city. you know, who are overwhelmingly immigrant women of color and who care for our loved ones. and this will allow them to care for themselves when they're ill. so thank you. and this is just another step forward in one of the most important and inspirational labor movements of the 21st century and there is still a lot more work to do to support our domestic workers and we have such a critical part of our workforce in our city. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor mar. madame clerk, please call the roll on item 13. >> clerk: supervisor peskin?

aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: ay >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk, let's go to our special order, 2:30 recognition of commendation. >> at this time the board of supervisors will be commending for meritorious service individuals before the board of supervisors. i believe it /* today -- today

is judy schwartz. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, president. later today we'll be voting on a resolution to declare jody schwartz lyric day, but i wanted to commend her for her years as director of lyric. she has worked with juveniles for most of her life. it was during that time that she was fortunate to have mentors of all ages solidifying her belief to achieve true civil justice, every generation's contributions should be seen. subsequent 15 years have been a testament to her commitment to enhancing the lives of lgbtq youth through education enhancement, career training, health promotion and leadership

development. during tenure as executive director, this included developing the lgbtq. launching the initiative to build allyship to create learning environments where 2slgbtq+ middle and high school students can thrive. launching the bay area first paid leave program. fighting systemic change such as 18 to 24-year-old transitional age youth and 2slgbtq+ as part of the children and youth fund. and ensuring that san francisco's violence prevention initiatives prioritize that community. jody has ensured the long term

organizational stability by securing numerous grants. during her tenure, lyric expanded to over 30 staff and five program teams, laying the ground work for the next phase of her career as president of lyric, where she has taken on a capital renovation. she improved accessibility, outdoor space and significantly increase the organization's commitment to provide onsite services. i'm excited to see the project come to fruition as it will be a capstone or her accomplishments at lyric and lgbtq youth for many years to come. i want to thank her wife catherine for reaching out to my office to make this happen and to thank her for everything she continues to do. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, supervisor mandelman, for doing

this recognition and creating jody day in the city and county of san francisco. i can't think of a more deserving tribute. jody, you are just a special human being who has done some of the most extraordinary work that i've seen with youth in our city. i can't believe that you will no longer be at the helm of lyric. i don't know how i'm going to survive without you in this role, but i just can't express enough gratitude to you for your years of service and the example that you've set for so many of us and all the youth that you love and care for so much. congratulations. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. before we hear from the honouree, i just wanted to say a few things. i think, jody, it goes without saying to me, you are one of my favorite people. watching you as a leader has been a joyful experience for me. the way you created space at lyric for young people and

particularly young people in the lgbtq community and made it feel like home the moment they walked through the door. from the time you bossed me around as your program officer while i was at dcyf, to all the times you mentored me at young community developers and, of course, through all the times we've shared breaking bread together with family. i have benefitted tremendously from being your friend. i know that i will always have the opportunity to continue to learn from you which makes your next endeavor easier for me to accept. i wish we could be doing this in person as you are truly one of a kind and it's too long since i've had a chance to see you and catherine in person. i can't wait to see what you do next and glad to be able to participate in you being presented to this body as an honouree. so just want to see, thank you so much for all that you've done

and thank you, supervisor mandelman, for honoring such a wonderful human being. jody, you have the floor. >> thank you so much, everyone. i'm honored to be before this illustrious body to receive commendation. i want to thank all of you for this honor and in particular supervisor mandelman and his staff who partnered with me on numerous occasions on issues related to 2slgbtq+ youth who are unhoused. i also wish to thank president walton and his staff for all the support they've offered to lift up the lives of 2slgbtq+ youth and the other communities pushed to the margins of our society. and special thanks to supervisors mar, ronen, peskin

and preston for your co-sponsorship of today's resolution in support of the leadership role in carrying out lyric's mission. i am proud that the organization is going to be a robust san francisco bay area anchor institution for 2slgbtq+ youth dedicated to building community and inspiring positive social change. lyric now has a budget of over $4 million and dedicated and committed staff over 30, offering youth a highly structured continuum of programs across five focus areas, centered around youth development, practices and principles. these practices and principles encourage youth to lead in their own lives. lead with one another and lead in community. not only known for the equality of positive impact of our youth services, lyric is widely respected by community leaders for creating a platform for youth to call for the social changes they see as being

fundamental for the community to thrive. during my tenure, lyric supported thousands of 2slgbtq+ youth, prioritizing youth of -- i've had the privilege to share in the leadership of lyric with many inspirational staff and youth leaders and dedicated partners on the lyric board of directors current and past. i've also had the extreme pleasure of working alongside many phenomenal community advocates as we work together to advance critical realtime social justice issues. some of whom are now on the board of supervisors. i'm very proud to see. i have grown tremendously as a person in my work with lyric. i'm appreciative to the youth who have been part of lyric for the life experiences and future dreams they shared with me.

in closing, i want to express my deepest gratitude to catherine, my wife of 30 years. for all communities, rest assured, you haven't seen the last of us. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, jody. [applause] congratulations, again, and thank you, supervisor mandelman for honoring such a worthy human being and our 2:30 special order is now closed. madame clerk, would you please go to item number 14. >> item 14 is ordinance to appropriate approximately $6.9 million from the general verve and approximately $5 million from other revenue for a total amount of approximately $12 million to the department of elections to support additional costs from unforeseen elections in fiscal year 2021-2022.

mr. president, this item pursuant to charter section 9.113, this matter requires eight votes of all members of the board. >> president walton: thank you. >> supervisor peskin: as set forward in the b.l.a. report, three and a quarter million dollars of this almost $12 million is really a policy matter for the board and let's talk about that policy. absent this appropriation, insofar as february election is partially the responsibility of a separate government agency. we are not a member of the decision-making body of that government agency, namely the san francisco unified school district would be paid by the school district in this case mayor breed would -- is proposing to foot their part of

that election in the amount of 3 and a quarter million dollars. in addition to the mayor's proposal, the $26 million that the city loaned the school district, be forgiven at the same time that the mayor is proposing, i saw in the newspaper this morning, a massive policy change about this government's relationship with that government and i note that the san francisco unified school district, not unlike the city, has just received a windfall of approximately $125 million, which is not to say that they do not have very real, very pressing financial problems. but i think we should look at these three things, the mayor's proposed charter amendment, the forgiving of $30 million as a whole. and i'm not prepared -- nor do i think it is good public policy for this board of supervisors

and the city and county of san francisco to cover this $3.25 million and will be voting in the negative. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. is director available? >> clerk: we're checking. he's present. >> president walton: i'll come back, i didn't see supervisor mandelman on the roster. >> supervisor mandelman: i appreciate the suggestion, but i disagree. each of these three matters he has brought up the forgiveness of the $30 million loan, this $3 million to the potential support to the district related to or picking up the district's cost related to this election and then the children's ballot measure all raise interesting questions, but i think for this particular item, this $3.2 million included in a $12 million supplemental, today, the

school board is meeting to contemplate how they're going to close a 100-plus million dollar gap in their budget. they have the state breathing down -- or at the door looking to take over the san francisco school district. this is $3.2 million of costs that we can take on relatively easily as part -- or incredibly easily as part of the supplemental. these are extraordinary times for the district and i think we should do it. so that is not to say this is the end of the financial resources that we'll have to commit to the district going forward. i think we'll have to do more and i think that is one reason why i'm supportive of the mayor's efforts to thinking about future funding, but for now, i think we should pick up the $3.2 million and move forward. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor ronen?

>> supervisor ronen: yes, thank you. i really want to appreciate supervisor peskin for bringing up these issues. i actually do agree with you on a policy level, but i am at the moment thinking about the school board and the school district in an emergency practical way. which is why i'm going to support the $3 million. our school district is in the most dire straits that it has ever been as far as i can tell. we're not alone. i want to start out to say we have had some highly public, you know, in many ways embarrassing moments over the last couple of years with our school board. but the state of our school district is a much deeper problem than the highly public,

you know -- and highly political happenings of the school district. public education in this country is at an existential moment of crisis. it has been so starved of funding, so starved of accountability, that i worry that the only institution that gives poor children a chance to overcome their circumstances and overcome poverty in this country is at threat. it is the only right we have other than checking library books out. it is the only right that we have to one of the basic needs of human beings which is a right to a quality education. i got an e-mail today that i immediately sent to supervisor melgar and my husband and almost started crying.

at my daughter's school, only 21% of the children are reading at grade level. only 12% -- 12% of the kids at my daughter's elementary school are proficient in math. guess what? this is almost the case for every elementary school in the mission and bayview. so, supervisor walton and i have some work to do on our hands because i do not believe that welcome just turn a blind eye to this massive crisis that is happening in our city and our state and our country. i am working almost every single day to try to work with our united educators of san francisco, with our california teachers association, with our california federation of teachers at the state level to pass a measure that properly

funds a special education in the state of california. if we properly fund special education, that will go a long way to filling sfusd's structural deficit. it will mean that kids that need special education services will get them. and it will also mean that the entire general fund or most of the general fund won't have to be spent on special education and can actually serve all students in our schools in san francisco. this is a crisis of a starved district. this district has not been properly funded since prop 13 passed in california. we are number 47 in the country for the lowest funded public school system, the state of california. so, i have -- i'm going to be having a lot to say about the mayor's charter amendment. i'm going to have a lot to say

about the upcoming budget process around our schools. but this is something that we have to pay attention to at a level that we never have had to before as the city and county, because we are literally on the verge of a state takeover of our public school system. something that we don't recover from for a decade and that's a decade we could lose more students -- that cannot read at grade level. bret harte elementary school, 10% proficient at math. how is that remotely acceptable? we're feeling as my colleague said, there is a certain point we have to look at these numbers and say, we have to get involved. we are failing our children. and this is not acceptable. so, while i completely agree with supervisor peskin, it

doesn't make sense for us to cover the cost of a recall, it's on the table and giving any money to our starved district at this moment in time, i'm going to support, because they need it that badly. and because these statistics are an embarrassment, they are an outrage and we all need to be working on fixing this problem. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president walton. thank you, supervisor ronen for putting it all out there. i totally agree. there is recall fever in our country and in our city. and, you know, i'm opposed to all recalls. i think it's a waste of taxpayer money and effort. i think that i have been watching the school board and what they're going to do -- what they were supposed to do last tuesday and what they're supposed to do tonight and i'm

worried. i've spent many, many years of my career in low-performing public schools supporting at-risk kids and we know what works. we know that rich supports work. we have had an inability in this city full of billionaires to adequately fund public education. i wish we were not facing a recall, i wish we weren't, but we are. so that being said, i think that i have no other choice but to vote for this because i don't want it coming out of the schools. so, it costs about $135,000 a year for a teacher at sfusd. think about how many teachers we're thinking about with these costs, so i will be voting for this. >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. and i want to thank my

colleagues for their comments on this. yeah, i have mixed feelings on this item. last thing i want to do is see the school district drained of resources, especially in the context of a funding a recall election that is just months before these candidates are on a regular ballot, but now is not the time to go into the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the recall, but it does put us in a bit of a bind on that front. i do think we have a choice. i do think that there are a lot of moving parts here. i appreciate supervisor peskin elevating some of those. you know, the same argument to suggest that we have to do this at this amount could be made to do an appropriation that is double this amount and we could say the same things, that we just have to do it, or half this amount, right? so i have a little trouble analyzing the policy question

here. is $3.25 million, the right role for the board to allocate -- roll for the board to allocate at this time. i did have a question through the president to the mayor's office. just around the timing of this item, i am curious if it is essential for some reason that this move forward today as opposed to if the board were to continue it. i say that because i think a lot of things are change as supervisor peskin has elevated, in terms of budget outlook for sfusd and we're looking at new controller numbers this week in terms of the city projection and budget. so one thought i had maybe continuing this to the next meeting might make sense, but i don't know if that would harm in any way the school district or the election planning efforts.

i wanted to ask that to the mayor's office through the president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. mr. paulinho? >> thank you. the timing is of a matter of importance as elections need appropriation in order to prepare for the election. >> okay, through the president, if i could follow up. is there a deadline, like if there were passed today versus passed at our next meeting, is there some kind of deadline that we're up against? i understand that obviously the special recall election is fast approaching, but i don't know what deadlines there are in terms of committing funds and knowing the sources of those funds. i mean, obviously, the district is on the hook if the board doesn't fund this. so i assume those plans are moving forward and it's just a policy question if we're going

to fund that. if there is some kind of deadline or date on which we need to make commitment that might impact the actual election planning, i'd like to know that. >> president walton: mr. paulinho? >> yeah, thank you, supervisor preston. i believe my colleague is on teams, madame clerk? maybe to better speak to the timeline. >> president walton: are you available, or director arndt, is this a question you can answer? >> hello, president walton. i can't answer the question, the timing of when funds would be available to the department. we were about half the cost of the september election was funded through the money that came from the state to reimburse the counties, so the money that we had -- it was allocated at our budget originally for the june election, has been drawn down by about half. so, i don't know where we are in the various categories -- the

budget categories as far as our balances are concerned in relation to conducting the february and april election if these budget appropriations, supplement appropriations were delayed. that's a question more for the mayor's office than me. >> president walton: thank you. i do see logged on, are you available? there you are. >> president walton, mayor's budget director, so, yes, our understanding is that the department would require this additional appropriation authority in order to have enough time to ramp up to conduct the february election. as director arndt mentioned, they've spent down and preparing for the september recall and so getting appropriation authority now is important to allow them time to prepare. i can't speak to the exact date by which they would run out of appropriation authority, but it is important that they have

sufficient time to prepare in order to conduct the election on the current timeline. >> president walton: is there a way we can get a response to that? >> we can certainly try. it may involve working with the controller's office, but we can see. >> president walton: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: if i could just follow up and thank you for those responses, but maybe i'm not understanding the mechanism here. i mean, if the board were not to approve this, i'm trying to understand if that would have any impact on planning for the election. i mean, this election is going to happen regardless and then we have a policy choice of whether and to what extent the board is going to contribute toward those costs. is that right? because what i was hear was suggested that -- the mayor's office, if we don't do this we

may not be in position plan for and carry out the special election. >> president walton: did you catch that, director? >> i didn't. i saw controller pop up on the screen. i wonder if he is here and able to talk about the appropriation authority? >> president walton: i don't know if that's the question. i think the question is, if i may, supervisor preston, is whether or not we vote on this there will be an election, correct? >> correct. >> president walton: is there a timeline that -- is there a required timeline for us to vote on this to move those funds. and that may be something controller rosenfeld can answer. >> thank you, mr. president and members of the committee. if i could, there are two questions here in front of you.

the ordinance would provide permission for the department to spend additional $12 million the remaining six months to conduct these two elections. and then secondly, there is the source for that $12 million in spending authority. the department at some point -- and if the board is interested, we can work with elections over the remainder of the meeting today -- at some point the department is going to run out of ability to hire staff and those sorts of things absent ott board on the expenditure side. so i don't know the precise date that will become an impediment for delivery for the elections. secondly, there is the source site conversation. i think the source site conversation can lag under our existing protocols for the school district and other governments aren't billed until the election is conducted.

so the source side of this, the revenue side is less pressing than the department having adequate appropriation authority. >> president walton: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton and thank you, mr. rosenfeld. i think that is helpful. my suggestion -- i don't know, colleagues, if you would be interested in this -- would be considering -- and i don't know the exact mechanism for severing out or dividing the file on the $3.25 million, continuing that until our next meeting. i want to be clear, i'm not necessarily opposed to those funds, i just think with the rapidly changing budget situation, both in the school district and with projections coming from mr. rosenfeld later this week, that we should have that information before making the decision. it doesn't sound like there is a realtime pressure around the $3.25 million and i'm fine with

the balance of it, but i see others on the roster and would be interested what colleagues think of that approach. thank you, president walton. >> president walton: what is the rule around separating out resources at a meeting like this? >> deputy city attorney, ann pearson. i think there are a couple of different ways to do this. we could potentially divide the question or during the remaining part of the meeting work with the controller's office to see if there is a way to more clearly duplicate the file, amend it so you're moving one part of it forward and keeping the other part in committee. the controller office prepares these ordinances, so i would love to have the time to consult with them to see what the best approach is to capture what you would like to do. >> president walton: thank you so much, deputy city attorney pearson. supervisor preston?

>> supervisor preston: thank you. and this comes back on a second reading as well. so i suppose that's another option to use the intervening time if folks prefer to move it forward and to have some of these discussions before a second reading. >> president walton: correct. >> supervisor preston: thank you. >> president walton: supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton. i am definitely torn on the very specific portion of the $3.25 million for the school district specifically dedicating this funding for a recall election. i, too, in the same sentiment with supervisor melgar, i am against all recall. i think that it's time for us to really think about how these types of recalls been used as a tactic against our democracy. so, to -- for us to allocate funding to support that effort

on a policy matter, it is very difficult for me to support that. however, at the same time as we have learned over the last few months, really the deficits for the san francisco unified school district is just challenging for all students in the classroom. as a parent of a third grader in public school, i just cannot fathom more cuts into our classroom and knowing what this could do to our unified school district. meanwhile, today, our board of education is going to decide -- to make the final call on their budget and however way it decides seems to be going to also determine the future of the district, whether that could trigger a state takeover.

so i am, if possible -- i actually am in a place where i'm willing to continue this conversation and to really assess where the school district is at. at the same time, i really thank supervisor ronen's leadership on this matter every day, and that's including the possibility of allocating $26 million, or forgiving the $26 million that we have loaned to the school district in response to prop g lawsuit. so, i think that's something to also think about. we are going to have another opportunity coming up to really think about how to dedicate some funding to support school district. the question is -- i think that we're all eager to support and help. the question is, are we going to dedicate funding for a recall on a policy level that some of us may not agree, or are we be able to figure out funding that

really, you know, channel that funding into classrooms that i think all of us probably really agree and aligned? so that's where i stand today. i think that you've -- if we cannot continue this item for further discussion, including waiting to see what happens tonight with the board of education's budget results, then i'm ready to move forward and vote in support, because i think that it's a funding that the school district desperately needs, but at the same time, if we can wait, i would definitely much prefer it that way. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. president, i think there has been some really thoughtful comments here today. i think it's unfortunate the situation that we're in. as someone who has worked tirelessly since i've been in office along with my colleagues to try and support our schools,

we won this lawsuit prop g. we passed another parcel tax that we were involved in, prop j, which has additional fund on annual basis to the schools. we're constantly looking at ways we can support through the rise initiative. supervisor ronen, melgar, chan, all been involved, thank you supervisor chan for the work that you did. every opportunity, supervisor mandelman highlighting the fiscal concern and support that they have and putting this out here early. we are constantly in conversation how to support our schools. that is unanimous. this particular situation we're in now, where ever you fall on elections, whether it's a special election to fill a vacant seat, whether it's the recall, whatever it may be,

those are happening. and i think the choice in front of us is pretty straightforward. do we take money that we have, that we can support the schools, or we ask them to come out of their own coffers that they do not have? and that money will be taken away from the things that we all care about. support for those students that are in most need with learning differences. busing for students to get to different parts of the city. so many different things that are less discretionary in their budget. at the end of the day it's a tough decision. my initial reaction when i first saw this was, i feel like we're constantly bailing them out, but in this time, they actually do need to be bailed out. and the ones that will suffer the most are the children and the families that need the most support, so i will be supporting this today. i do appreciate what supervisor peskin said. there is a lot of different things that are being put on the

table. there is the conversation about windfall, oversight, charter amendment. there is conversation about ongoing funding and support. so i think these conversations will continue, but i will be supporting this today. and with the understanding that we're doing everything we can to help our school district that is in tremendously awful fiscal crisis. regardless of what decisions are made today, no matter what happens at the school board, pain is going to be felt in the classroom. students and families, educators, the entire school district is going to be in pain. so we need to do everything we can at this moment i think to support them. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: this is straightforward.

these are not costs that they could have anticipated. no one knew there were elections coming in february or april. those elections are happening. the costs are real and the board is going to take action to cover the costs. we can also cover the school district cost. if we do not, they will have to cover them. i think this board should take on the costs. we can afford it. they can't. i think we should do it. >> supervisor peskin: i totally hear what folks are saying. we can afford it. i don't think it's the right public policy. i want to caution my colleagues that supplementals are coming one by one and they're coming one by one because weirdly enough, pandemic notwithstanding, we're actually doing financially okay as the city and county of san

francisco, so the next item on the agenda is a mid year supplemental for $2.5 million. the mayor just announced that she wants a supplemental for police overtime. can we just slow down and look at the universe of supplementals as a whole? that is -- that would be responsible, fiscally responsible for this board to do. so can we afford the school district's $3.25 million nut? yeah, we can crack that. can we afford the $64 million that we passed by an eight-vote majority? yeah, we can afford that. at what point can't we afford it? and more is coming down the line. i think if this board is playing the role that it is designated to play of being fiscally responsible about mid year supplementals, let's hear them all at once. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. director arndt, i do see -- i do

have a question. as we look at the subject of appropriations to the department, we've also, as you know, been going through our redistricting process and also working on language access ordinance. do you feel you have sufficient funding for interpretation and translation services on your end for all the language access needs? >> president walton, currently, yes, we have sufficient funding, unless there is a significant change in the amount of assistance provided. >> president walton: so with the understanding that we're going through redistricting, with the understanding that we have several elections next year, with our current interpretation capacity and the fact that we know that staffing levels are low when it comes to

interpretation and -- into the last four months of this year with all of those needs coming forward, going into the next year, i just want to make sure that we have adequate funding for language access, especially since we have so many diverse communities in san francisco. i know we're probably going to revisit this in terms of conversations about budget. but at this point we'll have to take your word for it and i know we're going to continue to talk to your office about meeting those language needs. thank you for being here, director arndt. i do just want to say, i think we should be clear that this is really a false choice. this is not a real choice for this body, because i don't really understand how funding a recall election supports our school district. it doesn't go toward any programming. it doesn't go toward any strategies to address the achievement gap that exists for our young people.

it doesn't increase pay for educators. it doesn't do any of the things that we need resources for our schools, so for us to pretend like we're doing something great for the school district, i would have to disagree with anybody who thinks that is the case. so it's a real false choice. however, the district should not be paying for a recall. the city should not be paying for a recall. and trying to remove all people of color from their elected posts. that's not something that the district or the city should be charged with and the people who call for the recall should have to pay for this themselves. so we're at a point where we're forced to make a false decision, but i don't want that narrative to be we're doing such a great thing for our children and our schools and that's not what

these dollars are doing. it's not supporting anything that is going to make my senior a better student or have a better opportunity or supervisor ronen's child or supervisor chan's child or supervisor safai's. so i just want to be clear what is happening here. and i just wanted to make sure that we think through this as we move forward. and the last thing is we don't have to vote on this today. after hearing from or controller, understanding that an election will take place, the only thing we're going to have a conversation about is when and if we pay the school district back for the resources for this recall. so i just want to keep that in mind as we move forward during this meeting. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton and thank you for i think really the

reminder that these recalls -- as my colleague supervisor melgar said, you referenced the recall fever that these recalls have cost and someone has to pay them. so, you know, my biggest issue was around the timing, not necessarily the amount and making sure that we have the most current information. i think there really would be two ways to go. one would be to put this over to later in the meeting. i understand the controller could make -- work with us to make the adjustments and move the balance of this out and then continue just the $3.25 million from the comments of colleagues. i'm not sure there is the will to do that. i think that my preference is probably -- i think i'm going to refrain from putting that over or making a motion to have this

move forward. i'm prepared to support it today, but i did want to flag that i do think when it comes back on second reading, depending what the latest figures are from sfusd in terms of the projections for the city, i just wanted to flag that we may want to take a fresh look at when it comes back for second reading. >> president walton: controller rosenfield, are you still there, i do have one question? >> of course, president walton. >> how long do you think it would take for you to have a conversation and come up with a possible way to move forward during this meeting without necessarily having to vote on that additional $3 million? >> i believe we could resolve that within about an hour, mr. president. >> president walton: so why don't we come back to this item if my colleagues are okay with that. we can come back to this item a little later in the meeting and give the controller some time to

work on that? looks like we're okay with that. thank you so much. madame clerk, would you call item 1r5. >> item 15 is ordinance to appropriate approximately $2.5 million of general fund reserve to the fire department for increased staffing to address paramedic staffing shortages in fiscal year 2021 through 2022. this ordinance requires a two-thirds approval or eight votes of all members of the board, specifically for $2.3 million pursuant to the charter. >> president walton: thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. president. just to continue the conversation slightly about mid year budget supplemental requests, this is something, colleagues, this conversation began far before actually the budget process last year. we -- my office sat down with the department of public health management oversight body of paramedics. we worked with the fire department. we worked with the --

[indiscernible] -- and all interested parties to come up with where our paramedics were, what the response time was in the context of so much of what is happening in terms of shifting of resources for paramedics responding to nonemergency calls. that was reflected in the budget, but when we looked at the call times and response times. call time and the number of call volume for a service request for paramedics had gone up exponentially since 2015, but the staffing had not. this department and paramedics within the san francisco fire department had -- are experiencing and have been experiencing for some time a tremendous sick leave, a tremendous -- so supervisor melgar's previous point -- hours of being overworked in a very difficult time with retention. in the budget, we put in,

working with chair haney and other board members and you, mr. president, additional resources as a place holder so that we could get some additional paramedics on board. there is another overarching piece of the puzzle which is there is a negotiated operating area that the private paramedics are required to operate at a certain percentage in the city and the san francisco fire department is required to operate at a higher level around 85% of the market of san francisco. that was negotiated decades ago. today our paramedics only constitute about 73% to 75% of that, so they're not even meeting their numbers that are negotiated in terms of how they're spores suppose -- supposed to serve san francisco. call times are targeted to be around 80% of the time responding on an on-time --

within the required time. this 50 additional paramedics, 23, or 24 in the first phase and additional 27 in the second phase to get us to 50, is something that is a severe health and safety issue for our city. so i think the time has come -- i'm sorry that it's happening mid year, but i think that this is something that is needed. it's a public safety issue. i just want to thank our chief, chief nicholson for her work and engagement on this, local 798, the department of public health, my colleagues on the budget committee and others in the mayor's office for working with us to ensure that this supplemental was done appropriately and will address public safety issues that we have in the city. it is a first major step and we will come back in the current budget process and look at this again to ensure we're meeting this.

also, this was done within the context of the controller's report. they did analysis and they came back and they believe these numbers are within the range of what is required to increase that work flow. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. seeing no one on the roster, please call the role on item 15. >> clerk: on item 15, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: no. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor peskin: i'm sorry -- never mind. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye.

>> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: motion to rescind? >> clerk: okay. >> president walton: seconded by supervisor safai. madame clerk on the motion to rescind the vote? >> clerk: on the motion to rescind the vote on item 15? mr. president, are you doing that without objection? >> president walton: correct. >> clerk: okay. so i believe, mr. president, supervisor peskin has rescinded the vote, so welcome call the roll on this item? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye.

>> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 16. >> item 16 is ordinance to amend ordinance number 109-21, the salary ordinance fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022 through 2023 to reflect the addition of 50 new positions in fiscal years 2021 through 2022 in the fire department to address paramedic staffing shortages. >> president walton: seeing no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. this is paed unanimously. please call item 17. resolution to approve amendment to agreement between the department of public health and

the san francisco public health foundation for program administration and support service force the san francisco sugar ydrinks distributor project to increase the contract amount by $9.6 million to new amount of 19.6 millioned and to extend the contract term for four years for a new agreement term and for the board of supervisors to delegate authority to d.p.h. to enter into amendments or modifications to the contract prior its final execution by all parties that do not materially increase the obligations or liability to the city and that are necessary to effectuate the purpose of this contract. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor -- president walton. i just wanted to give a shoutout to the folks at the department of public health who have been so thoughtful and wonderful in, you know, just drafting criteria

for r.f.p.s for folks who are using this money to make sure it is impactful in communities that are most affected. earlier, last week, we had a hearing that was introduced by supervisor safai at the children, youth and family committee looking at the epidemic of obesity of children in our city. overwhelmingly, it affects pacific and islander, african and latino youth. the numbers that we saw are stark. it sets people up for a lifetime of chronic disease because of sugar. i am really just in awe of how quickly the department mobilized and created a community-based response to this epidemic and i am really, really glad to support this today. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. seeing no one on the roster, we

can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted. item 18. >> item 18 is resolution to fix prevailing wage rates for workers on property generated by the city or pursuant to work performed under city contract, for public works and improvement, for janitorial services, on property owned or leased by the city in theater or technical services for shows, for workers engaged in hauling solid waste. for exhibits or displace for trade shows or special events or engaged in loading or unloading into or from a commercial vehicle products in connection with a show or special events or workers engaged in security guard services or motor bus services. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk.

seeing no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. without objection this is adopted unanimously. please call 19 and 20 together. >> 19 and 20 are two resolutions that comprise of harvey milk terminal. approving concession lease 12 through hff sfo, two and for a 12-year term with one two-year option to extend at the airport's sole discretion and guarantee of 545,000 fords the first year of the lease. and item 20, approving lease 14 between high connect for a 12-year term with one two-year option and minimal annual

guarantee of $570,000 for the first year of the lease. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take these items same house, same call. without objection, these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 21. >> item 21 is resolution to retroactive authorize the office of the district attorney to accept and expend $321,000 grant from the california department of insurance for the automobile insurance fraud program, the grant term of july 1, 2021 through june 30, 2022. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 22? item 22 is a resolution it to authorize the department of the environment to enter into agreements with other municipalities and entities under which the city will grant

royalty-free license to use the city's zero waste sign maker tool. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 23. >> item 23 is resolution to authorize the office of the treasurer and tax clerk tory accept and expend a $130,000 grant from larkin street youth services for the purpose of providing one-on-one financial coaching to transitional age youth through the rising up campaign. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call items 24 and 25 together. >> items 24 and 25, comprise two resolutions that declare the

intent of the city for item 24 to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $73.4 million to for 240 van ness avenue known as the kelsi civic center. and for item 25, in aggregate principal amount not to exceed $58 million to permit the issuance of bonds in the amount of $58 million for 4200 geary boulevard. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. these adoptions are adopted unanimously. >> item 26. >> approve and -- require certain real property located at

822 geary street and 629 hyde street to approve and authorize purchase of agreement and sale for the acquisition of the property for the purchase price of $6.3 million plus estimated $20,000 for typical closing costs for a total amount of $6.32 million and to affirm the ceqa determination and to make the appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, president walton and colleagues. this is a critically important acquisition that we're going to make that is going to provide to meet -- that will help to meet the needs of our community as it relates to behavioral health. there is one amendment that i would like to make which is non- substantive. the amendment states that the board is not authorizing any specific use of this property or

committing to a specific project and that further environmental review will be required for such discretionary acts. in this instance, the city is seizing the opportunity to acquire the property, but is still exploring all potential uses for the site and has not committed to a specific use or project on the site. it's important for the purposes both of clarifying our intentions here and also for the conversation that we had in committee around further partnership with the community and with the neighborhood to ensure that the health and safety of those who are receiving care at this facility, as well as the broader neighborhood is provided for. i would like to move this amendment. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton.

before i speak to the amendment which i oppose and respectfully i don't think any of us can support with a straight face because it's not accurate, true or correct. we all know that the acquisition of this property is for a specific purpose, but i will circle around to that. colleagues, as you know, and particularly those of you who are served with me the longest, i've long been a proponent of piloting a safe injection, safe consumption site in the city. going back to the days when my former colleague dufty started exploring this model which is used in other countries, including canada. and i have been a proud champion of increasing homelessness housing and services for those

struggling with any number of behavioral and public health issues in my own district and city-wide. even when mayors didn't support my efforts and i'm specifically referring to then mayor lee on the nav center that i wanted to locate in the northeast corner of district 3 in the northeast most part of the northeast part of the city. and i've supported these even when the community was initially resistant, but were open to being brought along. my office has done the heavy lifting and outreaching and educating community members and, ultimately we delivered on a number of specific projects, i want to thank you for supporting those. time talking about the first

t.a.y. nav center in san francisco and the acquisition of that. not before the fact, after the fact. first we started with the t.a.y. nav center on a lease. then we bought the property. the acsfwligs of -- acquisition of the grenada, the acquisition of the post and the diva who tells. and -- hotels. and unfortunately, i'm reticent to say it, but the administration has not fully delivered on the support necessary and the promises made to ensure that these projects are fully successful. nor have the departments been able to coordinate amongst themselves to fulfill their implementation commitments to these neighborhoods. the lower polk neighborhood and the smaller slice of the tenderloin that i represent have long been some of the last holdouts for a dense and diverse

community and time and time again, they have been cautiously optimistic that this city, this government would do the right thing by them. and if they welcome more services to the neighborhood, the neighborhood would be rewarded with more infrastructure, more parks and open space, more small business investment, more street cleaning, foot patrols, but instead they've come to our office to walk their children back and forth from school from the tenderloin to redding elementary after random attacks by individuals on the street. which by the way, my office volunteers to walk those children. our providers have come to our neighborhood groups for funds for raising funds. despite the fact that we have literally, colleagues, hundreds of millions of dollars in voter approved prop c funds left to

allocate. this community was promised geographic equity in a thoughtful rollout process to build critical infrastructure city-wide. this community supported prop c, even, yes, when our mayor was against it. there is about $100 million for d.p.h. in allocated funding for this year for site acquisition and treatment beds and two-thirds of it has not been spent. and by that, i mean there also does not seem to be a spending plan or any clear communication that i'm aware of where this funding is going. i met with tenderloin advocates last week. maybe others of you did as well and they reminded me that the community was in support of a safe injection site. and while 24 of the 27 callers at the budget and finance committee were glad advocates, many of the surrounding tenderloin residents and struggling small businesses are just now becoming aware that

this project is being fast-tracked without a real plan, as referenced in the budget and legislative analyst report. that report they jammed to produce because this was a last-minute end of the year crammed down item. and supervisor safai confirmed the prop c oversight committee did not approve funding for this specific site. i've also heard concerns from residents about the lack of information about the site being indoor, outdoor, how it will be staffed and how the mayor's new directive on policing will impact use at the site. in the last week alone, the last 10 days, we've had two separate shootings that s.f.p.d. has advised me were drug-related within two blocks of this proposed facility. all of those concerns coupled with the lack of information as outlined in the b.l.a. report

seem at least to me to warrant thoughtful consideration and a continuance of this item, if not to allow the rest of the community to catch up and voice their concerns, then at least to really ask more of our departments and this administration. i continue to support the model of a well run safe injection site, but the beleaguered community i represent and the district 6 supervisor represents, i believe, deserves the basic respect to have questions answered. with all due respect to mayor breed, they're not concerned if the sfpd can use their technology, they're concerned about the fact that they feel abandoned by the city which is more intent on sending out press releases than checking boxes on making real progress on these issues. and relative to this amendment -- >> president walton: real quick, supervisor peskin. is there a second on the

amendment? seconded by supervisor mandelman. okay, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: so this is not true. you cannot say that the city does not intend to use this as a safe injection site when the city intends to use this as a safe injection site. that's what the amendment says. it's false on its face. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. i don't see anyone else on the roster. madame clerk, please call the role on the motion to -- roll on the motion to amend. >> supervisor peskin: no. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye.

>> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> there are 10 ayes and one no with supervisor peskin in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you, by a vote 10-1, motion to amend carries. madame clerk, please call the roll on the amended item? >> on item 26 as amended, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: no. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. there are 10 ayes with one no with supervisor peskin in the

dissent. >> president walton: can you call item 27, resolution to authorize the mayor's office of housing and community development to expend south of market community stabilization fund dollars in the amount of approximately $1 million to address various impacts of destabilization on residents and businesses in the soma from january 1, 2022 to december 31, 2022. >> president walton: thank you, please call the roll? >> supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye.

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call item 28. >> item 28 is resolution to urge the san francisco superior court to prioritize assignment of criminal trials and safely open more courtrooms to ensure that the speedy trial rights of both defendants and victims are upheld. >> supervisor ronen: today i'm asking you to support the government audit and oversight committee's recommendation to adopt this resolution urging the san francisco superior court to prioritize criminal trials and safely open courtrooms. over the past 21 months, our courts have been violating one of our most basic constitutional rights, the right to a speedy trial. during this time, the court has cited the pandemic as an excuse

to continue cases past their statutory trial deadlines and keep people in custody. as a result, the number of criminal cases awaiting trial has skyrocketed. as of today, 451 criminal cases have been continued past their deadline for trial with 218 people in custody. 218 people who are presumed innocent, sitting in a cage, often waiting eight months to a year past their statutory date. as restrictions in san francisco are eased and vaccination rates have risen, the court cannot continue to use the pandemic as an excuse to keep violating this fundamental right. people are shopping for gifts, attending holiday parties, spending time with loved ones, while accused sit in custody pretrial not knowing when they will finally get their day in court. despite having additional courtrooms in the courthouse, the court has failed to utilize these departments to deal with the backlog. instead, the court has been

conducting civil trials while people continue to deteriorate in custody. we cannot prioritize money over liberty. the civic center courthouse has held trials both in and out of custody cases until the backlog of criminal cases has been dealt with, the civic center courthouse should put a hold on non-essential civil cases in trial. i invited the court, the public defender, the district attorney and sheriff to explore solutions. i was incredibly disappointed that the court rejected my invitation and failed to attend, but during the hearing, we learned about the effect of the delays. we had a robust discussion how we could use the civil center courthouse for in-custody criminal trials. the committee unanimously voted

to adopt this resolution. there is absolutely no reason we should not be using all the tools we have to address this crisis. i look for your support and thank supervisors preston and chan for supporting the resolution. in >> president walton: thank you. >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. i really wanted to thank supervisor ronen for her leadership on this. i think this was one of the more interesting hearings that we have had in gao in recent months or in this entire year. really exposing, i think, the extent to which people's lives are being ruined by being incarcerated and denied their right to speedy trial. while our courts are prioritizing non-essential matters, including evictions. it's really shameful this isn't

a greater priority. i do want to echo supervisor ronen's frustration, that the courts did not send someone to attend this hearing. the matter was continued to the call of the chair. it's my hope that we will regroup whenever supervisor ronen believes is the right time and that at that time that we do have someone from the court. we are obviously mindful of and respectful of the -- the independence, the judiciary. at the same time we need to hear from the courts on this issue. and on how they are addressing it to make sure that folks have their speedy trial rights respected. and lastly, i just want to say, there is such a disconnect right now between the press conferences calling for more police, more overtime for police, more arrests, more caging of mostly black and brown men in our society, and

meanwhile, we are not even taking to trial and allowing folks who are not even -- some of whom are not even guilty of the crimes they're committed of, the opportunity to be heard. it seems like misplaced priorities and very much appreciate supervisor ronen's leadership on this. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. i would like to be added as a co-sponsor, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 29. >> item 29 is a resolution to approve addition of territory to and adoption of amendments to the infrastructure financing plan for the city and county of san francisco infrastructure and revitalization financings district number 1, treasure island and project areas therein and to determine other matters

in connection as defined. >> president walton: thank you. no one on the roster, we'll take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call item 30. >> item 30 is ordinance to amend the public works code to require the department of public works to plant replacement street trees within 120 days of removal, to require that street trees removed without a permit be replaced by street trees of equal size and to require that tree protection plans include the applicant's acknowledgement of potential tree. -- i apologize -- of tree replacement costs. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, colleagues. this piece of legislation is something that grew out of the board of appeals receiving a number of serious complaints and

problems about how the tree removal was negatively affecting our tree canopy -- our city's canopy and the illegal removal of that has been an important conversation. i know i've had a lot of conversations with all of you. thank you, supervisor peskin, for engaging on this legislation. thank you, president walton, for engaging with me so tirelessly in the conversation about our tree canopy. but this issue had been elevated to the board of appeals and how during numerous hearings tree removal orders were issued and illegal tree removals were happening and fines were coming after the fact. so this process of what we're trying to do is work through the -- what we did in this process excuse me was work in the board of appeals recommendations and input from many people in the advocacy community. as you know, our city's landscape and tree canopy is so

important for the environmental health of our city. it contributes in so many different positive ways. we met with so many advocates regarding the appeals process and how they would impact the overall outcome of this legislation. thank you, supervisor melgar, for scheduling this and getting this on the calendar before the end of the year. what we did, we asked the department of public works first and foremost when the city is removing trees, very often what happened on 24th street and other areas of our commercial corridors were done, we require them to replace those trees within 120 days. and when a street tree is proposed to be removed by a private party as part of the development process, we require them to work with an arborist to come up with a tree replacement cost. that cost is certified and signed by the project sponsor or developer and in the end, if

there is illegal removal or damaging of the tree, the project sponsor is aware of what the cost of replacement is. if there is illegal removal without notification, we've increased the penalties and the first fine to be $10,000 or more. in the first fine, $20,000 on the second replacement. finally, colleagues, we feel like at the end of the day this is something that helps to clarify the process, helps to protect our tree canopy and i want to thank friends of the urban forest, i want to thank the interim director at department of public works, but always our director in the last decade, as i said, supervisor peskin, supervisor mandelman and others, supervisor melgar, for engaging in this process. and we believe this is the right way going forward. one last thing to point out about this legislation, it

allows for liens to be imposed on a property if fines are not paid. so thank you, colleagues. and i look forward to your support. and i think i thanked all my co-sponsors -- oh, supervisor mar, i think -- were you also a co-sponsor? yes, and melgar. thank you. and the rest please support. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. seeing no one on the roster, we'll take this item same house, same call. without objection this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk please call item 31. >> item 31 is a resolution to urge permittees of san francisco's bicycle share and powered scooter share programs to implement measures to advance rider compliance with the existing terms and conditions of the san francisco bicycle share and powered scooter share

program requirements and to urge the san francisco municipal transportation agency and its board of directors to establish new permit terms and conditions for future perms that further serve the goal of ensuring the public health and safety of pedestrians, seniors and persons with disabilities. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 32. >> item 32 is a motion to appoint mri date of birth terrell and guillermo reese to the food security task force for indefinite term. >> president walton: seeing no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. this motion is approved unanimously. >> item 33, motion to appoint to

the children, youth and their families oversight and advisory committee. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we will take this same house, same call. without objection, this motion is approved unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 34. >> item 4 was considered by the land use and transportation committee as a regular meeting on monday december 13 and was not sent as a committee report. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster -- >> clerk: mr. president, that matter is mooted, not before the board. >> president walton: got it. thank you, madame clerk. my apologies, colleagues. please call item 35. >> item 35 was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on monday, december 13 and was forwarded as a committee report. item 35 is a motion confirming

the appointment of jesus gabrielle to the police commission. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes, i wanted to thank the rules committee for the excellent work you did vetting candidates for the police commission. i read that chair peskin called it an embarrassment of riches after a long period of not having candidates up to the task. and i did not envy your decision, because you had two amazing candidates before you, jesus and david risk. and i did, for what it's worth, pass on david's information and resume to tyra, the mayor's appointment officer, because it's rare that we have two such amazing candidates that both want to serve on the police commission. so hopefully, we can get mr.

risk on the police commission at some other point. i certainly hope so. but i wanted to express my support and admiration for jesus. he has lived in the mission district for 24 years. for 20 of those years, he has served his local community by working with city departments in community-based organizations to advance violence prevention, work and focus on enrichment for our youth. jesus was program director of one of my favorite nonprofit organizations. he ran the program which utilizes evidence-based treatment, holistic hearing interventions and practices designed to address the basic needs and provide support to youth in partnership with sfusd, the juvenile and probation

department and the san francisco public of health. during his time in the committee, he contributed to the creation of best practices manual, working towards peace and healing in our community, which was later replicated by the city as part of the mayor's office of violence prevention services. he is currently working on the vision zero latinx safety plan modelled after president walton's incredible work created neighborhood-based safety plans as a consultant for the mission, language and vocational schools, institute in partnership with the peace collaborative for decades he has advocated for best practice interventions to address systemic issues that contribute to disproportionate minority confinement and has applied community driven restorative justice solutions. his deep experience and knowledge is going to be a

welcomed addition to the police commission and i could not be more excited to be supporting his nomination today. thank you, colleagues. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor ronen. and ditto to all of your comments. madame clerk, would you call the roll on this item? >> clerk: on item 35, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. safai absent. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, without objection, this resolution is adopted.

madame clerk, let's go back to item number 14. >> item 14 is the appropriation for the department of elections. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. i believe controller rosenfeld is on. thank you so much for your work and for coming back to join us this afternoon. >> of course, mr. president. at your request, we had a brief discussion with the department of elections regarding their cash flow needs. their existing appropriations are tight as they work to hire contract and other things heading into the up coming election. should the board wish to, my suggestion would be through duplication and amendment today, would be the effectively create two files. one, the first copy would be amended to represent the $3.25 million that the board discussed related to the question regarding the school district reimburse. and the second would be the

balance, which would be $8.7 million appropriation that reflects the remainder of the appropriations. if you want to, the board could move ahead with the second appropriation and take action on it and continue the second question into january, where we don't expect they will have cash flow problems until late in the month or early in february. >> president walton: thank you so much. is there anyone who would like to move in a certain direction? supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i will move -- i will duplicate and move the amendments as mentioned and described by the controller to the duplicated file. >> president walton: thank you. do we have a second? seconded by supervisor chan. so the motion -- well, the file is duplicated and then there is motion to approve the amendments

for the duplicated file. is that is that correct? made by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor chan. >> supervisor safai: point of clarification, what is the amendments we're voting on? sorry. >> president walton: we'll have controller rosenfeld -- >> that's okay. if he read it in the record, that's fine. >> supervisor peskin: similar political party stated, we're -- simply stated, we're giving them enough money for now and have time to vote on the balance later. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. madame clerk on the motion? >> just for clarification, we're talking about item 14 and just dividing the amounts? i haven't heard any amendments? is that -- >> supervisor peskin: through the president to controller, i thought you said duplicate, not

divide? >> apologies for the wrong procedural lingo. you end up with a file that is divided into two parts, one totalling 8.7 million and one with $3.25 million. >> supervisor peskin: all right, i would like to divide the file and vote on the $8 million and continue the $3 million to our first meeting in january. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. do we have a second on that? thank you, supervisor chan. madame clerk, did you -- >> clerk: yes. thank you. and so two votes, the first vote will be on approval of the $8.7 million on first reading? that's correct, mr. president? okay. >> president walton: it is on first reading. >> clerk: so on the $8.7 million, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye.

>> supervisor ronen: no. >> supervisor safai: no. >> supervisor stefani: no. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: no. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: no. >> there are six ayes and five nos with supervisors ronen, safai, stefani, mandelman and melgar in dissent. >> motion 6 to 5 -- >> clerk: it's my understanding that is the eight-vote threshold. >> president walton: so the motion does not carry because it requires an eight-vote threshold. madame clerk, where does that take us with the second motion? >> that leaves us with a vote on 3.25 million dollars to be continued to january 22.

>> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: -- yes, this is the on the motion to continue 3.25 million to january 2022 -- that would be the first meeting of january. >> supervisor safai: no. >> supervisor stefani: no. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: no. >> supervisor mandelman: no. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: no. >> there are six ayes and five nos, with supervisors safai, stefani, haney, mandelman and melgar in the dissent. >> president walton: supervisor

ronen? >> supervisor ronen: may i make a motion to rescind item 14? the last vote. >> president walton: second vote? >> clerk: and just for our record, that item we believe was not eight votes that was just a six-vote threshold, so as it's going to be rescinded any way, we'll say that vote was approved before it was rescinded. >> president walton: thank you so much. supervisor peskin? did you still have a statement? thank you. >> supervisor haney: what exactly is being rescinded? >> president walton: what are revoting on? >> supervisor haney: yeah. >> clerk: the next vote is on the motion to rescind that last vote. i have supervisor ronen was the first and who was the second, mr. president? >> president walton: do we have a second? supervisor mandelman. >> clerk: on the motion to

rescind, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. motion to rescind carries unanimously. now, madame clerk, on the motion to continue the $3.7 million to january meeting? >> clerk: on the motion to continue $3.25 million to the first meeting in january, which is january 4th, supervisor

peskin? >> supervisor peskin: madame clerk, supervisor president walton, my understanding is -- do we rescind the vote on the $8.7 million or the $3.25? >> president walton: the 3.25. >> and now it's the vote to continue to the 3.25 to january. >> clerk: that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: no. >> supervisor safai: no. >> supervisor stefani: no. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: no. >> supervisor mandelman: no. >> supervisor mar: aye.

>> supervisor melgar: no. >> there are five ayes and six nos with supervisors ronen, safai, stefani, haney, mandelman and melgar in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you by vote 6-5, motion to continue fails. >> that's 5 to 6, mr. president. >> president walton: 5 to 6, my apologies. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: so on the $8.7 million, this board voted by a 6-5 vote to pass that, is that correct? >> clerk: that's correct. >> and doesn't that need eight votes? >> that's correct, it needs eight votes. so the president said that vote failed. >> supervisor peskin: okay, so they just got zero dollars? >> so, what is in front of the board now is 3.25. since the vote failed to continue it to january. >> supervisor peskin: if i may,

mr. president? i believe what we're trying to do here is keep the department of elections going and the $8.7 million does that and it requires eight votes. so insofar as one side has six and the other side has five, which ever way you want to count that, either side has eight. so what i would recommend, colleagues, we all suck it up and give them the $8.7 million by eight votes and continue the 3.25 to our first meeting in january and discuss it then so that they have a little bit of money between now and then. just seems logical to me. >> president walton: deputy city attorney, if we don't do that, what happens? >> supervisor peskin: they get zero. >> president walton: deputy city attorney? >> deputy city attorney, ann pierson, as part of the votes,

the amounts were separated. the amount that goes to the department of elections was voted on first. that vote failed by a vote of 6-5, so the board did not approving money to go to the board of elections. it voted separately on the allocation to the school district. i don't know if you're still in the middle of that vote, to continue that item to january. but the result is as supervisor% pointed out, that has not been approved yet. >> president walton: correct. i want to make sure that was on the record per city attorney. >> supervisor ronen: so point of order, question, any supervisor can divide the file without a vote? is that correct? >> president walton: that is correct. >> supervisor ronen: so given that there is zero money being given to the department of elections, could we vote to

combine the file? is that not allowed? >> president walton: i think what supervisor peskin is do here is keep us from doing this all night. i don't think you're going to get an eight-vote threshold. it think it makes -- >> supervisor ronen: i'm seeing if there is a procedural way to vote on the entire $11 million, but there is not, so the votes have to be taken separately. >> president walton: i believe that is correct. >> mr. president, i will state for the record that we still have the $3.25 million in front of the board, and that is a six-vote threshold. and if you are going to continue to talk about the other part, which is the -- >> supervisor ronen: wait -- >> >> clerk: rescind the vote -- >> supervisor ronen: wait, wait. madame clerk, why is the $8 million an eight-vote, but the $3 million a six-vote?

>> clerk: because the title as written by the controller requires that -- if you look at the title itself, there is $10 million that requires a two third approval of the members of the board, which we encompassed in the first vote. >> supervisor ronen: i see. >> clerk: and the secondary vote was a little lower and that's pursuant to charter provision, 9.113 of section c. >> supervisor ronen: i would make a motion to rescind the vote on the $8 million. >> president walton: do we have a second. seconded by supervisor peskin. >> clerk: motion to rescind the vote on the divided portion of $8.7 million and, mr. president, this would be a six-vote threshold. >> to rescind. >> clerk: to rescind. >> president walton: thank you,

madame clerk. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> thank you, motion to rescind passes without objection. >> clerk: mr. president, i'll state for the record there are two items in front of the board now. the $8.7 million and the $3.25 million. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk, i was waiting for some -- supervisor safai?

>> supervisor safai: just a point of clarification. do we need a motion to vote on these now, or can we just vote on both? >> clerk: they are in front of the board. >> great. okay. >> president walton: just for my clarification, with the file being divided, we can still just vote on the item? >> clerk: the item should be combined if you wanted to vote on it together or you can continue and consider them separately, but right now they're still divided. >> president walton: correct, okay. so with the items being divided, our only action -- supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton, now it's divided, $8 million which would require eight votes to appropriate that funding and then the other divided is the appropriation of the remaining

3.25, that also require super majority of eight vote. >> the second one, the 3.25 only requires a six-vote threshold. >> i was assuming that the six-vote requirement for that, was it was only six votes because of the continuance to january? that's why it's a six-vote requirement, but any appropriation will require eight? >> president walton: deputy city attorney? >> maybe i can speak to the vote threshold and we'll ask the controller to correct me if i'm wrong, but typically, supplemental appropriations are subject to simple majority vote, except under the charter, there is a provision that subjects them to a higher vote threshold, a super majority, where the item you're seeking to fund was an item cut or reduced as part of the budget process. so the controller office

identifies those and flags them as requiring a super majority vote. >> president walton: so the motion for the 3.25 would not qualify for a budget item that was reduced? >> i believe that's correct, mr. president. >> president walton: so right now, the file is divided and we're back to the same place where we were, we're voting on the $8 million and then we'll have to vote on the $3.25. is that correct, deputy city attorney? thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i just wanted to call the question, so we can vote on both items. can i do that? >> president walton: you don't vote on both of them at the same time. >> no separately. >> president walton: madame clerk, on the first item, again -- supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: sorry, president walton. i'm not understanding and maybe

deputy city attorney pierson can explain. i don't understand the two-vote threshold. so you could have pretty much -- depending which one you call the original and which one you call the reduced, you could do this differently so that one -- the other one had eight versus six as the threshold. in other words, if you took the first file and reduced that to three, it would have a six or eight? >> deputy city attorney. i believe the vote threshold is determined by the items that you are funding. so in one case, the $8 million one will be funding the cost of the department of elections, which i presume were cut or reduced as part of the process, which is why they're subject to the higher threshold. the second question is allocation of funds to the school district which i presume were never part of the budget process and so we're not cut or

re-- were not cut or reduced. >> president walton: thank you for that clarification question, supervisor preston. so, madame clerk, on the first item to approve the 8.7 for the department of elections? >> clerk: on the $8.7 million to approve for the department of elections, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. motion to approve passes

unanimously. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: now that we've got that fixed, i would like to, yet again, make a motion to continue the balance to our first meeting in january. >> president walton: is there a second? seconded by supervisor chan. >> clerk: mr. president, i will say although it is a six-vote threshold today for this portion, because it's being continued, by the time you consider this matter, there will be another conversation needed to be had with the controller about which part is remaining that is eight votes and which part is six votes. so i just want to make that clear, because the ordinance is $10.82 million. the first part you already approved is 8.7. so there is a remainder contained in this 3.25.

just want to make that clear. >> supervisor peskin: so, president walton, from the controller, that has been my thought all the way through this, which is a portion of the 3.25 needs eight votes and a portion of 3.25 needs six votes which is precisely why we should continue this to january 4th. my motion stands. i would like to call the question. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. the motion was seconded by supervisor chan, madame clerk, but before we vote, supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: so i am confused as to why the portion of this that would go to the school district would require an eight-vote -- eight votes to pass. >> clerk: to the controller? >> given the charter language and will require more analysis

leading into each item, the appropriated, the 3.2 million appropriation is not sending money to the school district. it's sending money to the department of elections to conduct an election that in part includes the school board recall and other items on the same ballot. some of those line items in the department were reduced by the mayor and board in part of their consideration of the budget, which triggers the two third. we need to go through and match the board's actions, the mayor and board actions in the past with this reduced item of 3.25 to determine which line items within it require which threshold. >> president walton: supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: so -- so six votes will approve part of the 3.2?

and eight votes would approve all of the 3.2? is that the deal? okey-dokey. assuming the -- the vote now is on the continuance which defers the whole thing until january. and would that deferral would not change the required six or eight votes? >> president walton: to continue? >> if it continues to january, we're back to where we are now. >> president walton: but think at that point in the time the controller would figure out which is which. >> but we could vote on it tonight and figure it out between now and then. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor safai: it sounded like the controller was going to say something through the president, sounded like --

supervisor mandelman captured what i was going to say, if we reject the continuance, and we vote in favor, the controller will tell us what portion of the 3.25 will be made immediately? i want confirmation from the city attorney and the controller? >> president walton: deputy city attorney. >> the motion, i think that is before you is a motion to continue, which is a six-vote motion between today and the time that the item agenda, i think the controller will be able to look more closely at the appropriation and determine the threshold. that's not a call that i can make. that's a call we look to the controller to make because he needs to determine any of the appropriations considered part of this were considered in the process. >> supervisor safai: i wanted to hear from the controller as well.

>> no further comment. deputy city attorney, to determine what part of the $3.25 million, we'll take the additional analysis -- will take additional analysis. >> right, but through the chair to the controller, if we reject the continuance and we approve the 3.25 today, how long is it going to take you to come back to us or come it back to the clerk and the body and let us know how much has been approved? >> president walton: how do you even know what the threshold is? >> he said and the city attorney said some portion of this is not required for the threshold and the other portion is. so we should be able to approve something today out of the 3.25 million, he just has to come back and tell us what amount that is, so i'm asking him how long it will take him to give us

that amount? >> it wouldn't be information we could determine today, but i would expect we could in the next couple of days >> supervisor safai: if this money did not go to the department of elections and we amended it and had it go to the school district instead of the department of elections, would that change the threshold? >> it's an interesting question which we'd have to talk further about with the city attorney. in other words, that would be a process whereby the school district would continue to pay the city to reimburse for the elections but the city would rebate that back to them. i can't determine on the fly whether that's two-thirds or simple majority vote. i can say that would be a substantive amendment to the ordinance and would require a continuance. >> supervisor safai: okay, thank

you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. and i think the last exchange just kind of solidified for me that -- i think a continuance makes sense. i think otherwise if we as a body if we vote down the continuance and then we vote for the appropriation, if we -- if we do it by eight-plus votes, then things are clear. but if we do it by under eight, it's a mess and you're going to end up losing some chunk of that funding on the floor today which seems counter-productive. i don't know that anyone is advocating for that. again, we haven't heard there is any deadline or anything problematic here with continuing this, so i would just urge even folks who may not have been keen on a continuance before, i do

think it makes sense so we can parse out what the thresholds are and get to a point where we're approving this by eight or more when it comes back to us. but it seems risky to vote down the continuance and move this item without knowing which parts require six and which parts require eight. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i'm trying to get clear what happens if the board votes down the continuance and then votes for the appropriation by six votes. and i didn't quite get that from the city attorney. what happens with the ordinance? it would come back for second reading i guess in january or not? did it pass or any part of the appropriation happen? or did it not pass? >> deputy city attorney.

>> that's a complicated question and i would like to consult with the controller about it and could do that as you have roll call. at this point we do not know the threshold for this pot of money. if the vote is anything less than eight, would like to consult with him about the consequence of that vote. >> i'm good with them taking that -- >> president walton: thank you. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yeah, i just wanted to mention that the reason that i would like to take the vote today, even if it only results in part of the money going to department of elections is because of the $125 million deficit that the school district is facing.

and the constant movement that is going to be cut at sfusd. i don't know the timing of all of that. i don't know if sfusd is going to vote on a budget. i don't know if the state is going to take over. i don't know what it means. i don't know if $2 million means the difference between an extra teacher not being cut or not. and i don't want to wait to find out. i want to know that we're doing everything in our power to prevent more reductions. if it could be $2 million instead of $3 million, i think that matters. >> president walton: i think we heard from the controller earlier and also from director arndt that there is no time line, particularly no immediate

timeline for the 3.25 to be allocated. and so i'm -- i just want to state that for the record that we're not under a gun here in terms of the 3.25 having to be allocated any time. -- soon. so i just wanted to state that. so we have a motion on the floor to continue. it was seconded by supervisor chan. i don't see anyone else in the roster. madame clerk? >> clerk: on the motion to continue the $3.25 million to january 4, 2022, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: no. >> supervisor safai: no. >> supervisor stefani: no.

>> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: no. >> supervisor mandelman: no. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: no. >> there are five ayes and six nos with supervisorses ronen, safai, haney, melgar in the consent. >> motion to continue fails. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: just before us -- >> president walton: madame clerk, on the vote for the 3.25 million allocation? >> clerk: for 3.25 to be approved on first reading, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: no. >> supervisor preston: no. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye.

>> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: no. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: no. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> there are seven ayes and four nos with supervisors peskin, preston, mar in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk, the vote is over. i don't know how to term it. i don't know [laughter]. all right. madame clerk, roll call for introductions? >> clerk: supervisor peskin, you are first to introduce new business. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. after that impassioned speech on item 26 and all of that trouble on item 14, i just want to take

a moment to recognize all of you and your teams and the collective work of this body during what has been another pretty tough year and insofar as this is the last meeting of the year, i thought this would just be a good time to pause for a second and say, thank you, colleagues, i know it's rough sometimes, but it really is a pleasure working with you and thank you. so, yeah, sincere thanks. it's also charter amendment intro day for the june 2022 ballot, so i'll start with remarks on some i think important policy issues that i've been working on. and will introduce today. starting with a charter amendment on divestment. something this board has voted on in the past. [please stand by] [please stand by]

i want to thank my early co-sponsor and look to what i anticipate will be overwhelming vote of support from the san francisco electorate. next, as we discuss a little bit earlier in this meeting, i'm introducing a measure to bring recall reform to the voters of san francisco through another charter amendment which would expand existing buffers before and after general elections during which recalls would not be permitted. i put this forward in the context of the board's consideration of item 14. the proposed $12 million in supplemental appropriation to cover unforeseen elections in 2022. at the end of the day, our taxpayer is left footing the bill, count them for four elections next year.

which is frankly money i believe we would and taxpayers prefer spending on improve quality of life. thank you to the co-sponsors of this measure so far, president walton, supervisors chan, ronen, preston and melgar. i know supervisor melgar will speak more to this item, but i would like to say i'm honored to be a co-sponsor of her charter amendment on d.b.i. reform. it's really an effort to reform some of the deep-seated issues i think were created in 1984 by prop g. and so i look forward to that, which i think we all agree is a first step in fixing the corruption that we've seen really at every level of that department. i just want to end that by repeating something i said

earlier today which is i really hope that the building inspection commission and the mayor take this effort seriously and meanwhile hold off on selecting a new d.b.i. director until the voters have had a chance to weigh in on this basic reform and oversight measure. i do want to speak to a piece of legislation that is a culmination of many months of work between my staff and the planning department staff and the community, particularly community advocates in the tenderloin and chinatown to address a lack of density equity in neighborhoods where families have long borne the brunt of oversaturation of group housing.

through the concurrent rezoning processes allowed under senate bill 330, which is now law, we are seeking in this legislation to prohibit additional group housing in the tenderloin and chinatown neighborhoods in exchange for up-zoning elsewhere in the city. in addition, we're introducing clarifications to the group housing definition which plannings has been setting for some time in acknowledgement of what we actually experienced and discussed in these chambers a couple of months ago of some very vague definitions in group housing. the goal is to make the best group housing projects possible by implementing planning's recommendations on best practices and what will ultimately make these projects successful and livable. i want to thank the deputy city attorney for all of her work. my chief of staff and central city s.r.o., collaborative,

neighborhood development center and chinatown cdc for their hope and advocacy. finally, colleagues -- i know that supervisor mandelman will also be speaking to this and perhaps it can come from the full board of supervisors, would like to adjourn today's meeting in the memory of the revered judge and personal friend and beloved member of the a.p.i. community, the honorable justice harry lowe. last month, supervisor chan and i co-hosted a community appreciation celebration for justice lowe's son, our former rec and park commissioner, alan lowe, who unfortunately wasn't reappointed. and it was a really special event because alan's oldest son was in attendance and you could see the awe in this young man's face, he used to be my intern, as he learned about all the

incredible stuff that his father, commissioner lowe, had contributed to the people of san francisco. and ultimately, this passion for selfless public service and unimpeachable integrity is something that has been passed down in the lowe family starting with harry lowe who has left behind an incredible legacy, not only in the form of his children, but his grandchildren and for all of san francisco. judge lowe's story highlights the immigrant stories that helped build california, particularly in the central valley where he was born. in oakdale. he got an early start a law firm actually as a child when he was hired to sweep the place and the lawyer who hired him gave him a small christmas bonus that said,

to harry, a very fine lad, but the worst cleaner upper we ever had. his integrity led to headlines that included a spotless 45-year career, although his work as public servant spanned more than six decades. elected and civic leaders would ultimately turn to him time and again on some of society's and politics' more pressing problems. his brave position on the judicial endorsements was remarkably impressive. he placed -- complicated legal cases even under pressure from the legal community and fellow judges to endorse based on political ideology. he was careful never to -- activism for its own sake with the pursuit of justice which is a difficult needle to thread. after his official retirement,

he continued to provide pro bono legal representation to the chinatown community and critical cases that saved vulnerable low-income households, a number of them that i personally experienced, including around the corner from me on jasper alley, and the list goes on. we also worked together when the chinese tenants in 53 columbus avenue faced eviction from the proposed construction of the then proposed city college campus and judge lowe mediated that case and ultimately the tenants went on to become owners of the first san francisco limited equity housing cooperative. and city college was able to build it's campus around the corner. later on he mediated an ellis act that i just mentioned on jasper alley that, saved the

president of the community tenants association from eviction. he was a remarkable public servant with extraordinary love for the people of san francisco. a loving father and grandfather and i just want to close by expressing our condolences to his family and especially his son, alan, like father, like son, like father, like daughter, and i know you'll be hearing from supervisor mandelman and president walton if we could make this in memoriam from the entire board of supervisors, i would appreciate that. >> president walton: thank you. we will take that in memoriam from the entire board of supervisors. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor mandelman, did you want to go now? okay. thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank

you. submit. >> clerk: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: i also just wanted to thank supervisor melgar for introducing the d.b.i. charter amendment reform and say how proud i am to be co-sponsoring that. i this is one effort among many to reform the culture of corruption as d.b.i. that has pervaded many city departments and is an important piece of a group of legislation that it's been a pleasure to work with you, supervisor peskin and supervisor mandelman. i appreciate being a part of that. and, colleagues, i wanted to say that i am very sad and very excited for amy, who is retiring from her position as a legislative aide.

this is her last meeting today. i think it's rare when a legislative aide leaves that the entire board of supervisors feels it as strongly as the supervisor herself who is losing her chief of staff. it was so funny the other day, at the personnel committee, t.a., tilley said that losing amy is going to be one of the hardest things that happens to her this year. and i jokingly said, this is going to be hard for you? and then supervisor mandelman and peskin chimed in and said it's going to be hard for us, too. and i think that's a testament to how extraordinary amy is as a person, as a professional, as a brilliant life long housing rights activist, affordable

housing developer, just person extraordinaire. when i hired amy over four years ago and i first called her up on the phone and asked her if she would ever consider working for me as a legislative aide, she immediately responded thank you so much, but no. and it wasn't until i put on the hard sell and really told her how much of a difference she could make at the local level around housing policy and land use, that she accepted and i think that was the best hire -- being able to hire her and work with her the last four years, i will count among one of the best successes of my life. amy, your politics, your unwavering passion or justice, our disgust with greed and b.s.,

your intense hard work ethics. you are irreplaceable and i'm going to cherish for the rest of my life the four years i had working by your side. i love you. we love you. and i'm so grateful to you for all your extra ordinary work. and congratulations on your much deserved retirement. i held on for dear life and got her to stay close to a year longer than she wanted to. so i also appreciate you, amy, for doing that. thank you very much, the rest i submit. >> >> clerk: thank you, supervisor ronen. we will miss you amy. thank you for your help and service. >> supervisor safai: thank you, madame clerk. colleagues, as we have all been struggling over the last 18 months to do our best to help to lead the city, there have been

considerable challenges that many of us have not confronted in these positions before. one of the most glaring challenges we've had to deal with is the rise in brazen crime, particularly rampant commercial and retail theft, home invasions, car break-ins and the like. november 19, we saw the culmination of what we never thought this city would experience in union square. much of that has been exaggerated and exacerbated by the covid-19 pandemic. while i understand that retail theft and brazen activities is up across the united states in many major cities, in the hearing that we had in the fall, industry leaders talked about san francisco as being one of the epicenters of this activity in the united states. and it was there that we really learned and dove in on the conversation about organized

retail crime. this is not a term that i coin. it's not something that i embrace for our city, but it's just the reality of where we are today. and obviously, something that we are trying to do our best to respond to. for more than a year now, we've been tackling this issue and for the last six months, we've been working with industry leaders, civil rights groups, law enforcement agencies and others and we put together a working group that included many different folks from many different aspects of this problem. what we called our commercial retail prime working group. in there was the naacp, the alliance, the california retailers association, the hotel council of san francisco, the chamber of commerce, san francisco travel, labor organizations, united food and

commercial workers on the front lines. we consulted with -- i actually those that are impacted in the industry as well, also the council of district merchants, those representing small businesses across san francisco. along with our chief of police who was the co-chair, chief bill scott, our sheriff, our district attorney, adult probation, juvenile probation and others. so many were involved in this conversation and from there grew out of that -- those conversations what we pass today, which was our 10a legislation to bring forth commonsense policies i believe will not be the final solution, but will be a step in the right direction to addressing this rise in brazen retail theft. i don't think it will completely deter it all together, but we feel it's a step in the right

direction in helping to make our city safe. as legislators are confronted with these problems, we have to make very difficult decisions. and one of those continuing the conversation we're introduce today is the desire to curb those on our streets without vending permits selling goods and wares that are the step of this illicit activity. the idea is to stop the sale of illegal goods and fencing. the legislation will require a city-wide permit for street vending of nonfood-related items. after several conversations of announcement of this introduction, working with the mayor's office, she and i are introducing today as this legislation, this is the beginning of a conversation. we believe that it will require a community -- further community voice and input, but we are

happy to embrace this together and i appreciate the mayor embracing and leading on this. i definitely am interested in hearing more community input back from you colleagues and we look forward to its passage. as our city recovers from covid-19, i believe it's all our responsibility to ensure our resident workers, visitors and always feel safe in our city. don't feel they'll be a victim of crime or witness a crime if they come to our city and work in our city. i know this is a difficult conversation to have. i think we can begin to address justice and still continue to embrace the conversation around justice reform. i think that's very, very important and i'm committed to that. secondly, colleagues, on a bit of a lighter note, i am extremely proud to announce that

district 11 own balboa buck nooer team is a championship. this is the first title for them. buccaneers. they beat them 43-0 this past saturday, december 11th. so go bucs. i want to give a big shoutout to them and players and what an amazing season they've had. lastly, colleagues, today i'm introducing a resolution that is very, very personal to me. you've heard me talk about dyslexia awareness month. the importance of that issue as my son is diagnosed with a learning difference of dyslexia. senator has put forward s b237 at the state level. this is a commonsense piece of legislation. this would require -- it's in

its second year. it would require that students in california be screened for dyslexia in first grade and there would be a process to establish that screening. we have reached out to other senators. we've reached out to the governor's office to have conversations about this. we believe this is an extremely, extremely important issue. and i am not exaggerating when i say that this is one of the -- this can be one of the civil rights issues of our time. supervisor ronen addressed earlier today in her comments the horrendous, horrendous reading proficienty levels in our schools. i can guarantee you, colleagues, with almost 20% of our population, close to 20% having some form of dyslexia. many of whom go undiagnosed

until later in their education career, this is an issue. and on top of that -- and this is the sad point and i've said this before -- when you look at the prison population, you want to talk about school to prison pipeline, the prison population has an even larger percentage of individuals that have dyslexia. -- represented in their population. so this is very, very personal to me. there is an assemblyman in southern california that is refusing for this bill to be even heard in their committee. i think with commonsense and engaged negotiation we should be able to move this forward, but it is one of the most common learning disabilities that we have. i want to thank the governor for his leadership on this issue and

putting more attention and focus on the issue of dyslexia. but we need to support s b237. as i said, it's very personal to me. and hopefully, all of you will support this unanimously. with that, colleagues, i hope everyone has a wonderful holiday season since we will not be in session. and as supervisor peskin said, i really, really enjoy working with all of you. i appreciate your thoughtfulness. i appreciate the engagement and debate. and letting me bother you half the time with my jokes. [laughter] so, have a wonderful season and to you, madame clerk, and your team, thank you for the tremendous effort you've put into this session and to all of you, have a wonderful holiday season. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, madame clerk. i was just going to submit, but

since supervisor safai congratulated the balboa high school football team, i wanted to give a shoutout to sacred heart, actually in district 5, but my son is a junior there, they won their first championship. i want to thank the mayor for recognizing both balboa and sacred heart. i know the city hall will be lit in their colors. our kids have gone through so much and sports is such an important part of that. i want to say go fighting irish. and everyone have a happy holiday season and happy new year. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor walton? >> president walton: i, too, just wanted to say to amy, you will be missed. i remember when you actually left the affordable housing

community to come to city hall and that was a loss. and, of course, our team enjoys working with you in the district 10 office. wish you the best of luck in whatever you do next. i want you to know we appreciate all your work here in city hall. today, i have a few introductions and one in memoriam. first, i would like to give a birthday shoutout to our newest san franciscan, mr. jean duden, who celebrated his 100th birthday. he was raised in floor in the great depression and moved to san francisco in 1946 to settle after serving in the navy during world war ii. he met his wife on the dance floor and they were married for 67 years before she passed away in 2013. as an avoid sports fan of the 49ers, he was a season ticket holder for 67 years from 1946 to 2013. and still follows them today.

gene is much loved by his children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and is blessed and thrilled because they had him for so many years. we would like to thank and wish mr. gene a happy 100th birthday. the first piece of legislation i'm introducing today is an ordinance to authorize an open source voting pilot in san francisco. this legislation will allow the department of elections to submit a pilot for review with the secretary of state before february 8, 2022. this has been a long time coming. and i would like to thank then supervisors tom and scott wiener for supporting the creation of open sourced voting system. i would also like to thank elections commissioner and director of clean money campaign

for their advocacy on this. i want to thank the deputy city attorney for drafting the legislation. the director for moving forward with the province and my chief of staff for helping to make this happen. i also want to introduce a resolution urging the san francisco bay railway republic services to recognize workers rights to unionize. the nine workers at the san francisco bay railway located on port of san francisco property have been trying to unionize since october, but the management at republic services has been denying the workers the right to organize and refused to recognize the workers' desire for union reputation. the public services is operating well below the area standard for wages and health care benefits. for example, family health care coverage workers are required to pay over $900 a month premiums,

plus high deductibles, in and out of pocket maximums. we have always supported workers' right to unionize and we urge them to engage in a fair recognition process with the sf bay rail workers. thank you to my co-sponsors, supervisors peskin, ronen, preston, stefani and chan for signing on. i also want to introduce a hearing on the closure of juvenile hall recommendations. the work group met over the last 18 months during a major pandemic and i want to thank them. they worked to hear from community, experts and departments on the services offered at the current juvenile hall facility and they have submitted a list of recommendations for the board to review. our goal for the hearing is that the board can move forward with adopting and implementing the recommendations put forth. and this will be assigned to our

youth, young adults and family committee. i'd like to thank my legislative aide for staffing work group meetings and the director of the human rights commission for anchoring these meetings. my colleagues, supervisor ronen, supervisor haney, for joining me in leading the charge to close juvenile hall along with the majority of the board of supervisors. also calling on the hearing for the resources allocated for the dream keeper initiative, specifically on which programs have been funded and assessed what other needs this program can address. last, i have an in memoriam for -- as he liked to be called -- dram, who sadly passed away while crossing the street after his shift in the morning at the southeast treatment facility.

dram was a refugee at a young age and came from new delhi with his parents in 1947. he worked hard all his life and while he wasn't highly educated, he worked his way to being a technical officer with the indian institute of mass communication where he retired in 2001. he was a good father to his three children and dedicated husband to his wife for almost 60 years. he valued family and he valued work. he also moved to san francisco in 2011 to be with his grandkids and make the city his home. he loved walking in this city and loved taking muni to discover parts of the city he hadn't yet seen. sadly, his life was taken away too soon. our office will continue to work with m.t.a. and other city departments to make sure our

streets in district 10 are safer as well as across the city for pedestrians and to prevent future tragic accidents like this from happening. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, madame clerk. today, colleagues, i'm introducing a charter amendment for the june 2022 ballot as a clean measure. let's face it, the city has -- budget, but year after year, the city just seems not to be able to deliver services that it promises to our residents. now we have to discover through investigation. it is really because political cronyism and a lack of transparency have fostered a pay-to-play culture in city hall.

so the best way it counter this corruption is to shine a bright liability into all aspects of city government and reform city operations. all of it. so i'd like to thank my colleagues supervisor ronen, aaron peskin and dean preston for co-sponsoring this measure. i want to thank my legislative aide for all her hard work on this. we both have been in city government for a long time. we recognize there are many things that we can fix. and i think that this is not the only way to fix it, but this is definitely a fundamental way to change the culture and the structure of our city government. this charter amendment i am calling a good and clean government because it's going to do a couple of things. one, it's going to really create an independent city administrator who can focus on delivering city services free

from political cronyism. and second is for us to share appointments to charter commission between executive and legislative branches. it's around delivering the basics, providing quality service. clean streets, public safety and reliable transit coordinating work between city departments and managing the city's public asset. the measure will also provide checks and balances and transparency for all city departments sharing appointments to charter commissions between the mayor and the board of supervisors. and i also want to take this opportunity to thank amy, you know, and i know that my team has always been super grateful to her and just her experience. i know that we came back when we were co-sponsoring the

inclusionary housing mandates with supervisor ronen's office and amy had that brilliant one pager. it explained it all. it's hard to find people who are so brilliant and so kind and have such a strong moral compass on doing the right thing. we're going to miss amy as well. of course, i wanted to join in memoriam for judge harry lowe. i met him when i was a young aide working for attorney kamala harris and then he already retired, but still very much a strong figure among the chinese american community. and we always look to him for his leadership, for his guidance. i know that young lawyers that work in our community for asian law caucus, api outreach, look

to judge lowe for his guidance and support and that's including one of actually our former police commissioner lee who is the current ethics commissioner, also was under the guidance and mentorship of judge lowe as well and she has learned a lot. from her, i learn a lot. so you see that just pass on to generation to generation. and so just so grateful to him and my condolences to former rec and park commissioner alan lowe and his family and definitely sending them my love and all my thought and prayers. thank you. with the rest i will submit. >> supervisor haney: thank you. colleagues, today i'm introducing a resolution in support of the faculty at the

csu to fight for a fair contract. it's the largest four-year in the country, with 23 campuses, including state university and has a downtown campus in my district. educates 473,000 students every year and producing half of our state's bachelor degrees. this makes csu the backbone of our economy. the california state university is one of the ethically diverse systems in the united states. while students and faculty return to campus after a trying year of coping with you on over the world's worst health crisis, the student to counselor ratio remains below recommended

standards. 1 counselor for every 15 students. translating to inability to access needed care. csu's own data shows that the university system receives significant covid-19 relief dollars, saw substantial increase in state funding and university revenue exceeds expenses. management continues to show faculty they have other priorities for using this historic money which includes a 10% pay raise for campus presidents. when appointed in december 2020, the chancellor took a decrease. after a near and a half of negotiations, they have rejected the proposals on anti-racism and social justice demands including adequate parental leave, job

stability for the most exploited faculty. in some cases, the csu has proposed increased fees that would equate to a salary cut and has created additional barriers for faculty of color and women. this is of importance to us. csu campus is in our city and huge numbers of san francisco students who attend csu around the state. i want for us to stand with the faculty, librarians, coaches and counselors of csu and encourage fair contract that reflects the cost of living, particularly in the bay area and minimizes the divide between tenure track and faculty and the critical social justice demands. i also want to share my gratitude to amy for her

service. amy is someone we have all benefitted from and it's been a privilege to work with her. i know my staff, as does all of yours, greatly appreciates her partnership and leadership and look forward to continuing to work with her in her new role in the community. i'm sure she will continue to make sure we do the right thing here. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: i will pile on to the expressions of affection and gratitude for amy. i was trying to think about when and how i met amy. because i know it was long, long before i started working in city hall. i think it might have been when i was a young attorney doing affordable housing. our paths might have crossed there, but they certainly

crossed a number of times. i knew she was awesome before i entered this building to work. and have only had that confirmed on numerous times. so we all wish you well, amy, and we're really grateful you've done here and before here. i want to thank supervisors peskin and chan for sharing their personal thoughts about judge harry lowe. i remember hearing about him as a kid, you know. his reputation, you know -- and his accomplishments are truly extraordinary. my legislative aide over the weekend was digging in to pull together the sort of biographical details i'm going to read now and which i think tom is going to turn into a wikipedia entry. but he truly was extraordinary and he happened to be a district

8 resident. so, aaron shared the story of the note that he received when he was a janitor over a summer in high school. to harry low, a fine lad, but worst cleaner upper. but he knew the law was in his future and after junior college, he went to berkeley and was accepted to the bolt law school. he married his wife who would be his wife for the next 69 years. he graduated from berkeley law school at time when there was five asian american attorneys in the entire state of california. he remained being a teacher

assistant. following brown's assent to the governors's office, he worked for stanley mossk and thomas lynch. in 1966, in his final term as governor was coming to an end, pat brown appointed harry to the san francisco municipal court. when we had a san francisco municipal court. making him san francisco's first asian american judge. he would serve on the municipal court bench for seven years and presided over the summer of love in haight ashbury and the black studies protest, which he remarked was a wonderful training ground for a judge. he was as supervisor peskin noted, an active democratic party member which stopped him from receiving further appointments from governor reagan, but he mounted a campaign with help.

again, a first. he was the first chinese american person to serve on the superior court and would serve in the position until 1982. he was appointed by another outgoing governor brown it when in 1982, jerry brown appointed him to the first district court of appeals where he made history again as the first chinese american judge. he would serve on the court of appeals for nearly a decade, retiring in 1992 as presiding judge. judge lowe didn't get to relax for long, when following retirement, he received a call and the mayor said, now that you're retired, you can take on the roll as president of the police commission. -- role as president of the police commission. that included aftermath of the rodney king riots and four

different police chiefs. he was appointed to san francisco's human rights commission where he served as chair. he received another appointment. insurance commissioner. harry lowe again made history as the state's first asian american commissioner and helped restore confidence in the office and helped to turn it into one of the premiere regulators in the mission. he worked as a mediator, particularly in cases involving the san francisco chinatown community and supervisor peskin spoke to those. he helped found the chinese international school, served as a board member in the laguna honda hospital foundation and volunteered providing counseling to at-risk youth. he received many honors for his lifetime of accomplishments,

including the 2002 excellence award from the bar association. the 2003 distinguished alumni award. the 2007 san franciscan of the year award. commendation from the board of supervisors as part of the 2018 asian american heritage month celebration and even emmy award for part in the broken promises broken dreams. harry lowe was a proud resident for almost 60 years. he had been rejected countless times trying to purchase a home because of his race, but they were welcomed into diamond heights in 1962. and he fought against the attempts to build a freeway through glen canyon, the defining district 8 fight. spent countless hours with his

children in diamond heights elementary school. it is an enormous honor to have represented such an accomplished and trailblazing constituent. and he is survived by his wife may ling lowe, still my constituent. our condolences go out to all of them. rest in power, harry lowe. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you, madame clerk. i do want to also express my deepest condolences to the family, friends, community of harry lowe. our city and especially the asian american community has lost a giant and a true trailblazer, mentor and role model for so many.

but his legacy will live on in our city. also really want to acknowledge and thank amy for all of her amazing contributions to supervisor ronen office and work in our city. i've known amy for many years before i had the great opportunity to work with her on the board of supervisors and i look forward to continuing to work with her as she transitions to her new role. colleagues, i have two items today. first, the first one is regarding the controller's audit on the public utilities commission social impact partnership program. really three years ago, labor leaders began ringing the alarm bells on concerns they had with the controls over sight and implementation of the community benefits program. i shared those concerns. in the spring of 2019, an audit

of p.u.c. programs was the first audit i commissioned through a motion passed unanimously by this body. this is before nuru was charged. the b.l.a. audit deferred to a controller's audit and last week we finally got it. i'm grateful to the controller's office for the work on the audit. it's a long time coming. i'm grateful to the building trades leadership that first requested this. the program is important and we can deliver millions of dollars in benefits for our impacted communities, but only if we have a program that is transparent, accountable and effective. and, unfortunately, the program has fallen short of that. so today with my co-sponsors supervisors stefani and preston, i'm calling for a hearing on the

controller office public integrity report on the sfpuc partnership program so we can have an open dialogue with the sfpuc about their findings. we're anticipating this hearing to be held on january 20th in the new year and very much looking forward to it. colleagues, i also want to take this opportunity to announce that i've asked the city attorney office to draft legislation requiring sfpd to create foot patrol and community policing plans with input from neighborhood stakeholders and based on city-wide guidelines. recently, there has been a lot of public attention focused on organized retail theft impacting corporate chain stores and high end retailers. these are real issues and i believe -- but i do believe they've been sensationalized by

a media frenzy and in response, mayor breed, sfpd and district attorney have announced new initiatives, including the anti-retail theft initiative and increased foot patrols in the union square and other tourists areas, these are important, but what is missing from discussion and action on these issues, is the voice of our neighborhood small businesses who have also been impacted by increase in property crime and less able to respond. last week i held a hearing in the public safety and neighborhood services on public safety strategies and our neighborhood commercial corridors and at the hearing small business leaders spoke about how their struggles during the pandemic have been made even more difficult by increased

burglaries, vandalism theft and property crime. in response, as a first step, again, i've requested the city attorney to draft legislation to strengthen sfpd's foot patrol by creating a clearer framework for community engagement at the sfpd district station level. each part of our city is unique. it's important that sfpd foot patrol and community policing plans are tailored to the needs of each neighborhood and created through a partnership of community stakeholders. this will also include input from neighborhood and merchant groups and as well as requiring the district stations to have a plan to ensure language access for our mono lingual and immigrant communities. i want to thank supervisor haney

and president walton and i look forward to fuller discussion with all of you as i bring the proposal forward in the new year. the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, madame clerk. so, first i wanted to express my deepest condolences to the lowe family and thank supervisor mandelman for that very thoughtful in memoriam. i really appreciate that. i also wanted to say thank you so much to amy who i've known actually longer than i've known supervisor ronen from our adventures in the affordable housing world. she is by far one of the most thoughtful and hard-working people in, you know, our area. and really gets in the weeds and is detail oriented and really has such a strong moral core and deep commitment to what we're

trying to do. i'm so sorry to lose her as a coworker here and i know she'll do amazing things and good luck to in you in replacing her. today, i'm introducing a charter amendment to reform the building inspection commission and department. i am joined in this effort by supervisors peskin, ronen and mandelman. thank you so much for your input, your thoughts, your ideas and your co-sponsorship. i also want to thank the city attorney robb kapla and pierson for their assistance and the new attorney david chiu who i bounced off a bunch of ideas off of. so this charter amendment will do several things, but above all, we are seeking to restore

the confidence of the public in the building department inspection. i want to acknowledge also the men and women who work in the building inspections department who day in and day out serve the public in the city. and have been demoralized in seeing the constant press and, you know, corruption that has happened in the department despite their hard work and commitment to our city. and i just want to make sure that we acknowledge them and see them and, you know, promise to do better. the charter amendment seeks to reform the commission to do several things. one is to mirror the process that nearly all commissions follow in terms of the nominations. it will be a nomination between the mayor and the board, but follow the process of going to the rules committee having transparent input about

community, having public comment and then a vote on the commissioners. it strips away the requirement that commissioners have dedicated seats. right now, it is a conflict of interest in my opinion of the regulated being the regulators and having dedicated seats for architects, engineers, builders. so we will not have that and do away with the potential conflict of interest as that brings when commissioners represent a specific constituency that is regulated by the department. this is just a launching point and we will continue to by ordinance create the conditions of more transparency and efficiency in the building inspection department.

i also want to acknowledge this department overseeing the security of our neighbors in building and we want to make sure that the public can once again trust that the department's activities are -- that they support our safety in our life and the life of our loved ones and not cut corners or respond to corrupt activities. you will see this legislation go through the actual process and i welcome your feedback and your input into this. and thank you for your support. i'm also introducing a resolution urging the san francisco municipal transportation agency to prioritize improvements around playgrounds, school zones and senior zones. i want to thank supervisor

stefani, supervisor chan for your input and thoughts and supervisor mar for their co-sponsorship. a few weeks ago, colleagues, we saw a teacher who was killed by a speeding car in front of a school. a teacher who had not only attended that school as a child, but then worked there as well. i think, you know, now that ab43 was passed we have a tiny little plan as we heard this morning to make improvements in slow corridors. i want to urge the san francisco transportation agency, the folks who oversee the school zones to be proactive, to not just respond to requests for help, but actually prioritize. quick-builds and engineering fixes around schools, playground

and areas where seniors and people with disabilities are crossing the street. and thank you, supervisor chan, for your input of the last point. we are not on track to meet our 2024 goals as we heard this morning during our c.t.a. meeting. children are among our city's most vulnerable population. they need to be protected. so prioritizing traffic safety around school zones is a key solution. it's crucial that the m.t.a. advance and uplift programs, like the school crossing program and muni routes serving city schools. these do augment safety around schools, but it's crucial we reduce speeds and we make the physical improvements we need so that children are safe, seniors are safe and the areas around schools and playgrounds and

senior centers are prioritized. i am also asking the m.t.a. to work with the sfcta and come to the transit authority board of directors to create an analysis of what streets in the high-injury network and the school zones should be applied for the quick-build tool kit by next year. and the rest i submit. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. mr. president, seeing no names on the roster, that concludes the introduction of new business. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. and now we are at public comment. >> clerk: at this time, this the board of supervisors welcomes general public comment. the best practice to use your touch phone to be in live sync to both listen to the proceeding and provide public comment. throughout this meeting, the telephone number has been streaming on the screen. it's 1-415-655-0001.

and when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d., 2499 319 6320 # #. you know you'll have joined the meeting once you hear the discussion, but your line will be muted. once you're ready to get into the queue to provide public comment, that's when you should press star 3. when it your turn, listen for the prompt you have been unmuted and begin speaking. you may speak to the approval of the minutes as presented for the november 9, 2021 board meeting minutes, the latter section of the agenda hosting items not heard in committee, items 38 through 52, that's the adoption without reference to committee calendar and the matters that are not on the agenda today, but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. all other agenda content has had its public comment requirement fulfilled at committee. as stated earlier, we do have

interpreters on standby and ready to assist. i would love it to have the interpreters introduce themselves and the service they provide with the public. we'll start with filipino, then spanish and then chinese. welcome, interpreters. >> interpreter: [speaking filipino]

>> interpreter: [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish]

>> interpreter: >> [speaking chinese] >> [speaking chinese] >> clerk: thank you to all three of you for being with us this evening and this year. much appreciate your help. we have 17 callers listening and i believe we have seven callers ready to make their comment. operations, let's hear from the first caller. i will say, if you are one of the 17 and you'd like to make comment, don't forget to press star 3. let's welcome our first caller. welcome, caller. >> thank you. this is legal council for the

fifth church of christ scientists. the applicant for the 450 farrell street project. i'm speaking on item 42. my comments are in opposition to the board of supervisors disapproval of the decision of the planning commission to approve the project. we submitted a public comment letter earlier today with more detailed comments. that comment letter identifies that the board's disapproval is a clear violation of state housing law, including the housing accountability act. it is undisputed that the church project is subject to the housing accountability act and that as required, the project requires with standards. the statutory deadline for the city to contend otherwise has passed. yet the draft resolution before the board would disapprove the project without making the

findings of unavoidable public health and safety violation required by the housing act. such findings could not be made here. consequently, this disapproval is a clear violation of the act. our letter also address how the findings are arbitrary and capricious. even under the standard that refers to city, the board funding would be insufficient. for housing projects, recent case law affirms that the act will give the fullest object weight to the interest of and the appropriate approval of housing. deference is not give ton the city. we know that the state and housing department is investigating the city's decision here. [bell ringing]

>> we don't want to interrupt anyone this evening, but we are setting the timer for two minutes. >> good evening. i wanted to calls at mayor reiterates that the police might be a helpful to our homeless and fentanyl crisis in the tenderloin. the iron law of prohibition. it's described as the cardinal rule of prohibition. tonight i want to emphasize that two years ago we had a heroin problem. today we have a fentanyl problem. this is predicted previous. it's based on the -- fentanyl,

because those more potent forms offer efficiency. economists write that the iron law of prohibition undermines the argument in favor of prohibition. because the higher potentcy forms are less safe for the consumer. we can see this today in our teenager's use of alcohol, where in the united states they use vodka and -- this is causing violence on our streets. this situation wouldn't exist if it weren't for the police forcing it to be this way. so i'm calling tonight to say, end the war on drugs rather than funding another round of failure.

>> thank you. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> caller: hello? hi. my name is victoria pierce. i'm a local resident and i'm here todays the head troublemaker for california rental legal advocates known as carla. not to mention the mini series which end after one episode. i hear that some members of this body are concerned about gentrification and traffic

impacts. as you're aware of the state department of housing has sent you a beautiful letter saying that your obligations didn't -- gentrification and traffic in the past decade, but it hasn't passed any legislation. and thus san francisco does not legitimately believe that these concerns rise to a level of importance where action is to be taken. in 2018, the city of san mateo tried to -- we appealed. ultimately, the court of appeals ruled that the h.h.a. is real law and both applies to chartered cities. and back then, carla had a budget under $200,000 with only two employees. this is different. h.c.d. and the housing strike force is backed by the fifth largest economy on the planet. this is more money and more

power than you or i have ever yielded and that's who you're up against. whatever resources you think, you wager, sacramento will have ten times that. everyone has realized they're a figure leaf of a cover over what you're trying to do. [bell ringing] next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon. san francisco of the chapter of the american institute of taerkts. on october 22nd of this year, the department of building inspection on request of the fire department suspended pg o2, which code exception created by d.b.i. to meet the requirements of the state building code to provide an emergency exit from all bedrooms below the third

floor. the openings provision requires unobstructed access for firefighters to reach and a clear path to the public right of way. due to the lot line develop and varying topography in san francisco, there is no access for firefighters to carry ladders to the rear windows nor is there a clear path to the right of way. recognizing that they cannot meet the building code requirements, d.b.i. has provided two amendments to the california building code alternative to provide for safe exiting. the first allows a passage through the garage, provided the garage has a system and that the garage level is accessible from the rear yard. on many lots in san francisco, that is impossible. this provision is costly to implement and not physically

possible. the second alternative provided by the d o2 said it was met if the safe provided from 25 feet from the rear of the subject property. no substitution has been offered before the acceptance of the code and any project submitted to d.b.i. after september 22nd that cannot meet the requirements as required by the stakeholders now dead in the water. this is affecting hundreds of current renovation addition adu and new construction projects, additional -- [bell ringing] >> we have 18 listeners and there are nine callers in the queue. if you'd like to make comments that evening make sure you're

pushing star 3. i apologize if i'm interrupting anyone, we are setting the timer for two minutes per person. i welcome the next caller to make public comment. >> caller: good afternoon. evening. supervisors. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition, also speaking to two items at 469 stephenson and 450 o'farrell and respectfully request that you reverse your decisions on both of those projects and approve them to build housing. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is robin. i live in district 5. i'm speaking with regards to items 42 and 44. i'm asking you to not pass the findings reversing -- the

findings therein. i think several callers have stated previously, these findings are spurious at best. you are likely going to be violating state law. in doing so, you're going to be wasting a lot of the city's budget on a legal battle facing california department of housing community development and/or the attorney general's office. the city has not given findings disapproving the permits as requested -- required by state law. the city is likely using ceqa in bad faith to deny housing project in the case of 469 stephenson street. recent research out of uc berkeley i believe shows is that the median time for housing

approval in san francisco between 2014 and 2017 was 26 months. that means that half the housing projects took two years to approve. that's the longest in the state. the san francisco website fort board of supervisors states that san francisco is in violation of the permit streamlining act and has no plans to rectify this. these issues must be rectified for housing process, you might as well do it now and save yourself the trouble of having to face the state in the legal action later. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right, we have 21 callers in the queue. 13 ready to make comment. if you're one of the 21 and you haven't already, press star 3 now.

and highly discourage you all for attempting to approve those projects. it's shameful. it shows san francisco is not supporting californians. and the practices and mindset.

don't think of this as short-term relief for tenants and related items. but i'm speaking on long-term. if so, i guess i'm not -- san francisco, but i'm maybe i'm alice operations, let's welcome our next caller, please. >> hi, this is the executive director at gimli law, calling about 459 stephenson and o'farrell. you should not adopt these findings. we've sent you lots of letter. i just want to talk about the findings for 450 o'farrell

because, you know, many of you may not have read them, which is a shame, because if you vote for them and you're endorsing them, you're associating yourself with the ideas and words that are in the findings and the ideas and words are embarrassing. so there is one in particular that i think is like -- i know that everybody on here wants to be known as a smart person, a respectful person. one of the findings for 450 o'farrell is that it should not be built because -- like it aren't financially successful. first of all, what is your job? is it to protect investors? that's not your problem. you shouldn't be going out there and saying you shouldn't build the building because we think it's a bad business plan. it's ridiculous. even worse, the findings specifically mention the

panoramic which the city just bought. october 19. you just voted to buy the panoramic and the findings for 450 o'farrell say you shouldn't build 450 because projects like, like the panoramic, are up for sale right? so you should definitely build 450 o'farrell if you think it's a bad business model and soon will be available for sale and soon the city can buy it and use it -- i hope you understand what i'm trying to say and hopefully you did read the findings and you can at least adjust them. it also says in there there is -- >> thank you for your comments. we apologize if we interrupt anyone's comments, but we're setting the timer for two minutes. let's welcome our next caller. we have 18 callers listening and 11 ready to make comment.

welcome, caller. >> hi, good evening, chair and board. thank you, supervisor haney for putting forth the resolution for chancellor castro to make a fair contract with the cfa. i am james martel, a professor at of political science and the president of the california faculty association which represents the faculty on all 23 campuses of the c.s.u. i am asking you to pass this resolution because i think the c.s.u. administration needs a lot of external pressure to do the right thing. as you saw in the resolution, c.s.u. gave the chancellors and is in the process of giving the campus president large raises while trying to give the faculty nothing or very well below the rate of inflation along with other measures that they asked for such as removing the right to grieve based on discrimination and other matters that pertain to academic freedom and our ability to offer

students the best possible learning conditions. our slogan is our working conditions are the student's learning conditions. the c.s.u. needs to hear from you because they clearly have the wrong priorities and think of it as a private corporation instead of a public university. they are not the same thing. it is not a profit center or a c.e.o. like salaries while the faculty and staff get next to nothing. they should be devoted to what public universities do best to work with ethically and racially diverse students to give their all to the community so the c.s.u. gets the message of the value of the public university and demands a fair and decent salary. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> i invite you all to a vigil

in front of city hall for homeless who died in 2021. join us friday at 6:30 when sf honors them by saying their names. ♪♪♪ ♪ in san francisco the nation we don't lead by good example. our example is weak with people dying on the streets tonight.

it could be me next dying on the streets. it could be you when you have less money. how much is life worth in such a wealthy city. with the poor ignored until they go exchange. -- until they go extinct in san francisco. >> thank you so much. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller please.

>> good evening. jordan davis and i would like to talk about the charter amendment first introduced. first, fossil fuels. if you oppose this, you are probably a [bleep] and recall reform. we need to reform the real because, let's face it, they turn into right-wing temper tantrums. now on the case after good governance, yes, i believe that the mayor shouldn't have all the power and in fact t mayor shouldn't have appointees on any commission. let's face it if the board appointee and takes like 6,000 votes to remove them. and under the commission and four of them subject to removal if they don't vote the mayor's way. that is a big [bleep] problem and they need to [bleep] reform

that. and i would like to talk about the charter amendment that is not and you need to be split there and not control any commissions. i want to talk about charter amendment that was not discussed and that the mayor introduce and is probably going to come before the rules committee about taking control of the school district and we already have a strong mayor system and basically giving her even more [bleep] power over these and basically with the school board bull z axishit and i am sickened by this. and i am just sickened by this to give this charter amendment to withhold funding. let's punish the children because you don't like the school board. that is [bleep] bullshit and needs to be rejected and is part of a right-wing anti-school board backlash and public education serves the public, not parents and individuals agenda. happy holiday to all of you except for the mayor and her

cronies. may you all burn in hell. i yield my time. >> thank you for your comments. do we have another caller on the line please? >> i am a resident of san francisco and i used to live in the tenderloin and soma for many years and lived in san francisco until 2015. i want to urge support for the two housing projects and san francisco has. i have been there my entire life and increasingly extensive along with the arguments of mistrials about this specific legal issue that has seen people on the streets and spent time to secure themselves. and arguing about the specific ordeals of how this event should look like and making excuses

when the entire region is in crisis and has been far long time and i really urge you to have the courage to do the right thing to prove this so people can have homes. >> thank you for your comments. all right. do we have another caller in the queue please? i live in district 8 and asking the board of supervisors who approved --

[inaudible] sir, we are barely able to hear you. [inaudible] it seems as though the reception is not very good. giving you some more time if you can hear this, come back on and finish your comments. operations -- go ahead, sir. you have a minute left. to oppose -- [inaudible] please reflect on this and do the right thing. do not deny over 700 families

homes. thank you. >> thank you for your comment, sir. all right. mr. atkins, we have 18 callers who are listening and about 7 who are in the queue. if you are one of the 18, please press star 3 now. this group could go pretty quick to the end. all right. let's hear from the next caller. >> hi, good evening. thank you, president walton and board members. i am calling in support of the resolution presented by supervisor haney to urge csu chancellor to agree to the fair contract for the csu faculty including the faculty at san francisco state university. thank you, supervisor haney, very much. introducing this resolution and i am erica pulley and i am a lecture at the forecast department and environmental communication and video production and lecture at san

jose state university where i teach climate change communication. and i join you tonight to give personal testimony about the lecture experience in the bay air and across the state and the country. i grew up in san francisco and received both my m.a. and b.a. at san francisco state and my two children attended day care and preschool at fsfu. we are about as san francisco state as you can get. currently i have been lecturing at the university for five years. i am working close to 50 hours a week between two c.s.u. universities and i still make under $50,000 a year with no real job security and no real secure with the university. and lecture faculty are the majority of faculty at san francisco -- sorry, and academia workers. even though i have a partner who

works full time we can nod keep up with the ridiculous rent prices and had to move in with family and now commute eight hours a day and are functionally homeless. san francisco state is and has been a vital center for higher education for low income first generation and bipoc students in the bay area. fsfu is and will bleed dedicated staff as it cannot pay livable wages and provide job security and unable to meet the needs of the students without these changes. please tell chancellor castro -- >> thank you for your comments. >> i want to apologize for the interruption. we are setting the timer for two minutes this evening. all right, mr. atkins. let's hear from the next caller please. >> good evening, board of supervisors. this is gilbert of district eight. i am calling about muni.

they care about fare hikes and service cuts. i am here for transit justice and transit equity. we need the buses to be on the street, not parked at the muny yard. i went by the yard and saw thousands of buses just parked at the muni yard. those buses need to be on the street picking up senior, disabled, and poor folks to get around the city, not parked at the muni yard with the infrastructure bill that congress passed, muni is getting a billion dollars. they need to hire drivers and get the buses on the street to poor and neglected neighborhoods. and people don't have access to clean drinking water, food, access, or medical care. we need muni to restore services

that have been cut during the pandemic. no more cuts to service. restore service and expand service. why is the central subway still closed? the central subway should be open. people have spent a billion dollars on the central subway. what are they waiting for? another billion to spend on central subway? we need to get to central subway open. so people can go from the castro to china town. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chriswell. do we have another caller in the queue please? >> hello. i live in burn old heights and this is academically in support of item 15 and the general statement about gratitude to the people and city of san francisco.

three years ago last saturday my heart stopped beating and fortunately, i was in front of my husband and he had the presence of mind to immediately begin c.p.r. and call 911. he kept up c.p.r. one handed because he was partially paralyzed in one arm for eight minutes and it is for that reason and i am externally grateful and put up the christmas tree as we seen and heard about the thousands in san francisco who talked about them and there is much to be thankful for today and i am grateful to live in a city that funds world class trauma and emergency hospital care minutes from the house. i am grateful that a team of e.m.t.s and first responder were able to restart my heart. i hope that we continue to fight so that everyone can have access to that level of care. i am grateful to live in a city that welcomes people from all over the world.

a team of more than 40 doctors and residents just at sf general alone not counting kaiser from north, south, and central america from europe, asia, africa and the middle east including the bleep hole countries we were told to be afraid of worked incredibly hard to keep me alive. i thank them all. i am grateful for the unaccounted nurses and support staff and exotic places from texas who work tirelessly and not mention my name in the medical report and nurses rock. hospital staff rock and i thank you. i am grateful to live in a city that values and respects my marriage. my husband was treated with the utmost respect and courtesy by medical staff during this ordeal and instead was never once questioned or diminished in any way and the advocacy -- >> thank you for your comments. we appreciate the general personal nature of your comments but we cannot have you tie the

items to that part of the agenda and definitely not to that item that was disposed of by the board of supervisors but i let you continue only because you were focussing on your personal experience, so thank you for your comments. mr. atkins, can you please -- let's hear from the next caller. >> this is the executive director of library users 2004 at yahoo dot com and po box 170544 san francisco california 94117-0544. i am concerned about a number of things. two in particular this evening has to -- one has to do with fees and one has to do with open

hours. it's my understanding that in general the supervisors are supposed to be approving any fees or charges that city agencies make. they have done so in the past. but this time the library has provided charges for copies which are frequently used and they have a brand-new system which has some problems, but the initially opening with $10 of free copies. that is 100 black and white pages at 10 cents a page. more for color copies. without any discussion whatsoever with the board of supervisors to my knowledge and certainly none at the library commission whatsoever, there wasn't a mention of this and in december they went down to $2 and is very good and very

valuable to have free copies to preserve materials. there was no discussion to approve or in any way review what they were doing. and i think it's an unfortunate basically increase that is being created. with respect to hours, there is still only half of the libraries open seven days a week and 14 of them only open five days a week. and clearly a prejudice against and a cut of evening libraries. >> thank you for your comments. i apologize for interrupting your comments. we are setting the timer for two minutes this evening. and we have 14 callers listening and six prepared to make the remarks. and if you would like to make comments, if you have not already, press star 3 to get in line to speak.

mr. atkins, let's hear from the next caller please. >> i live in north beach with the written findings with the denial of housing and as you know, a majority of the board of supervisors voted in recent months to deny housing at these two sites. these were anti-housing decisions by a body that claims to be pro housing and several to make the anti-housing vote. and the you can't say you are pro housing and requires action. if you take anti-housing votes that makes you anti-housing. no matter what you say. the good news is it's not too late. you have an opportunity tonight to reverse the previous decisions on the two projects and support housing at the two

sites and then you can truly live up to your word as pro housing members of the board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. all right, let's hear from the next caller please. >> i would like to ask the sf board of supervisors to change their votes and approve the proposals at 450o'farrell and 469 stevenson. the two projects combined add up to around 800 homes and that is likely 1 to 2,000 people. they have been excluded from san francisco as a result of your vote. and you may not know who the people are, but they are real people. they are actually maybe 1,000 people you have excluded from the city by denying these two projects and not only that unethical and illegal. i am not sure if you read the

drafted finding and they are reasonably bad and will not stand up to the legal scrutiny and currently under the microscope. if you vote for the drafted findings and tying the game to the findings and you should be reluctant to do that. the findings are spacious in reasoning. most of the arguments don't qualify as substantial evidence for any number of conclusions. the claim about the stevenson project implies that basically every project with foundational need and environmental impact review and i would be surprised if the majority of you agreed with that acquisition and in the drafted finding. reverse the votes and from the public's outcry after the votes it is clear this was a mistake.

i hope you do so. take care. >> thank you for your comments. if you are one of the 10 who are listening and like to make comment, now is a good time to press star 3 if you haven't already. and otherwise the last three callers to the end. welcome, caller. >> good evening. my name is tim chan and on behalf of the legal conservation of voters and 469 stevenson project and environmentally focused organization who care deeply about housing, especially affordable housing and a number of you have received endorsements from us. these important projects are located in neighborhoods with rich transit bike and pad networks and commits a lot of portability with strong support from many community based groups and heard the board speak passionately about the housing crisis and now is the time to

deliver. too many have used ceqa to stop or delay projects and as a result of the action t construction cost will rise each year and this creates undue challenges for the developers to find additional financing that will further delay the projects. we cannot delay any longer if you are truly serious about providing affordable housing for people who desperately need it. we urge you to reverse the decisions and support the projects. >> thank you for your comments. >> welcome, caller. that may be a silent line. let's go to the next caller.

>> i would like to oppose the motion affirming the rejection of 450 and the defactor rejection because they do not meet the standard of the housing accountability act and 452 and shameful controlling when the residents would be transient renters despite the fact that the same reasoning would apply to all the sro residents and says that it is not the goldilocks that you want and too few amenities to be housing and these are classic nimby arguments and are not progressive and do not meet the requirements and explained a glut of housing group is laughable. and always please don't down zoom the ordinance and --

[inaudible] if you truly care about the new residents, you should raise the planning code to match planning code 208 group housing limit to have kitchens in the housing units. and please not affirm 469 stevenson ceqa denial. you didn't pay it off with the environmental impact. and made claims about geotechnical impact to ordinarily be addressed and are not a ceqa impact. please reverse the rejection of the almost 1,000 units of housing. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue please? welcome, caller. >> all right. that caller must be -- that must

be an unattended line. any other callers in the queue? >> madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> thank you. mr. president? >> seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, let's go to the for adoption without committee reference agenda items 38 to 52. >> items 38 to 52 were introduced for adoption without reference to committee. a unanimous vote with a supervisor may require a resolution to go to committee. do any colleagues want to sever any items? supervisor ronen? >> item 41. >> supervisor peskin? >> item 39. >> thank you, supervisor pes kin. supervisor haney? >> 44.

>> thank you, supervisor haney. >> item 51. >> thank you -- 51? thank you. thank you, supervisor preston. madam clerk, on the remaining items -- >> that would be on items 38, 40, through 43, 45, 46, 47, and 48. and -- >> 49 and 50 i believe as well. >> 51 -- 49, supervisor ronen, you called to be -- >> 41. got it. >> 45 through 50. and 45 through 50. correct. supervisor pes kin. >> aye. supervisor preston. >> aye. >> preston aye. >> and ronen, aye.

and supervisor safai. >> safai, aye. supervisor stefani? >> aye. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor chan. >> supervisor haney. >> haney, aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> mar aye. and supervisor melgar. >> aye's. >> and the resolutions are adopted and the motions are approved unanimously. madam clerk, call item 41. >> i'm sorry, 39. >> item 39 is a resolution to urge the san francisco planning director to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the state density doe us in application process by amending the bulletin numbers that project sponsors submit a financial analysis that has been evaluated and confirmed by a qualified third party

consultant as determined by the planning department. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. >> thank you, president walton and colleagues. and i circulated by email and hard copy three nonsubconstant constantive clarifying amendments piejs one and two and would like to make a motion to adopt the amendments. >> seconded by supervisor chan. >> we would take that motion same house, same call, to amend. >> i would like to thank co-sponsors chan and preston for the co-sponsorship. >> thank you so much. see nothing one on the roster, we will take the amended item 39 and without call, number 39 amended is adopted. madam clerk, please call item 41. >> item 41 and set to july 1,

2022 as the transition date for purposes of the sanitation and streets commission pursuant to the charter and the sanitation and streets department will come into existence three months after the transition date. >> thank you supervisor ronen. >> thank you. >> i wanted to call up the acting director of public works who i want to thank for staying this whole meeting to be available for questions and comments. i asked this item be severed not to hold up this item or not approve this item, but to have a public conversation about the implementation of proposition b and fulfilling its purported goals and certainly what i believe the public voted for when voting for proposition b, which is to have cleaner

streets, which we desperately need representing the mission district. that the streets are in unacceptable conditions the majority of the time. and number two, presenting or completing projects on time and on schedule which is something that we have seen over and over again is not happening in the city. and my worry of being one of the two supervisors representing the board on the prop b implementation committee is that the current acting director of d.p.w. and our city administrator charmen chiu, our mayor's chief of staff have all said that they don't believe that implementing prop b will solve the two problems that i believe voters expect to be solved when this law is implemented. this is particularly brothersome

to me because the people who make up the prop b steering committee are myself and supervisor haney is the author of prop b, the city administrator, public works director and mayor's chief of staff and controller which are the people request the decisions together and i wanted to have this public conversation and to ask if they could talk about what is needed and prop b is passed and if that is in itself is not going to meet the goals that i laid out and that i believe the voters expect of the city. what do you need from us? so that we can accomplish those

goals. because and if it was the answer to the city around clean streets and projects being completed on time is now the law to take advantage and do whatever it is we need to do to accomplish those goals. and this conversation is troublesome to me in the prop e implementation committee we are hearing over and over again that implement takesation will not get us cleaner streets or better project delivery.

>> to work for financial and the executive steering committee that supervisor ronen referred to to try to really figure out the best way to implement the new law that was passed and in a way that would deliver on we believe the intent of the voters was. unfortunately and not result in cleaner streets.

the proposal that i think the city administrators office landed on to allow us and the city to save a number of resources that go towards administrative functions of establishing a second commission and duplicating a lot of the costs put those resources into directly into street cleaning. specifically hiring additional laborers to provide street cleaning services. i think the costs have been estimated at 12 to 13 million

and an additional something like 26 positions that none of whom would be focused on street cleaning directly. and also, i think that the sense is that there are one of the concerns of the that are likely to see less from the city department and there was an issue with thework being done by the contractor and proposed a costly change orreder to fix the issue.

and because i believe we were all one public works and contacted the colleagues in the cement shop at operations and they were able to perform that work and save the cost of the change order. that is one example of the many ways that the different divisions of public works interact together and work together to support the delivery of projects. so we understand that there is a desire for cleaner streets in san francisco and we share that desire strongly and i think it is also important to recognize that much of the street cleaning that is done is effective at the moment in which it was completed and have challenges with street behavior that contributes to the streets being dirty again shortly after we have cleaned them. if we want to deliver on promises to the voter of cleaner streets, we need resources to go directly into street cleaning

rather than into additional administrative function and bureaucracy. >> i don't mean to interrupt you, but i think this is going a bit beyond the question i am posing to you. and watching the clerk and city attorney to get a little nervous. and i don't want to re-litigate prop b and we held several hearings on prop b. but absent a second ballot measure. and supervisor hane haney.

and with the legislative process when it was first before us. what i want to bring to the forefront and the conversation i want to have is prop b is happening as far as i can tell. it is being implemented and i know that you and the administrator or doing that, too. and you are also simultaneously saying it won't achieve the results we want to achieve. whey am saying is i get you don't think this is the best way to do it, but i don't want to do this work and i said and a joint commitment and for the funds and to any leeway that we have in

terms of the implementation process and the law that was passed by the voters to accomplish those goals. and my question to you and i will try to do it in a not long winded way is implementing prop b. and what additionally do you need from us to achieve the two goals of cleaner streets and better project delivery. >> and funding and i think prop b delivery is realistic deadlines that we need is one of

the challenges and understand in san francisco there is a lot of unknowns that exist in terms of underground and unforeseen conditions and project delays. and we are well within the industry standard and change orders. and rather than promising something that will take less time than we actually will and i don't think people are going intentionally. >> it is important to set the prerogative and is not the

outside deadline. and if you want to accomplish this project and there is the time line for doing that. so many projects and frankly, political pressure and stick to realistic deadlines and be firm in what the deadlines are. when there is pressure to deliver. >> i don't want to take up a ton of time and i wanted to inform my colleagues from the public and we have a problem here. i would love to hear from supervisor haney and

administration doesn't believe to achieve and what we're hearing from the interim director of public works to appropriate with our departments on project deadlines to see if they are realistic and that is what is going to accomplish those goals. so very my participation going forward, like it or not, and here is where we are. and to spend all this time implementing prop b and then to not achieve and appropriate in the budget for next year and the money that is needed to have a basic semblance of cleanliness

and order in the streets. so if $10 million is what we need in order to do that, we should seriously consider and look at it instead of just throwing up our hands in defeat and saying we are not going to accomplish our goals, etc. >> thank you for letting me have this conversation in public and honestly going back and forth to figure out if i should resign from this committee or if i should double down. and actually try to get some meaningful work done. and with the supervisor of a district that has a neighborhood in it. and to look forward to that and this obviously we can have a hearing on this process. we can have hearings and conversations at budget committees and appropriations so

i want to keep that in mind and continue the concerns and vetted them in a more thorough way. >> president supervisor haney? >> and i appreciate supervisor ronen your partnership and the introduction and authorship from prop b and the approach that you are taking. the goals of prop b and to achieve with the charter amendment and are clear and they want clean and healthy streets and sidewalks and they want accountability and oversight that has the department we all know well and the voteers and

residents know is not working right now. the people who work there don't believe it is working and structure built around accountability and effective oversight with what the voters have mandate. and what we are doing is any measure or means and not effectively and what we are doing is setting the transition date that is mandated on july 1 and start a new department on october 1. that gives us another 10 months to do very, very important work that supervisor ronen is discussing to make sure this is successful.

and the partnerships from the mayor and as you identified, supervisor ronen, and i completely agree, and dedicated resources to staffing. to make this successful. and what we are doing today is going to give us mandated by the voters who is a stronger and more accountable structure. with that together with the mayor and have been to get it right and clean and healthy streets and effective oversight which has to include projects that are on budget and on time. so with that i committed to working with all of you, supervisor ronen, and i hope you stay on the committee.

to interim director short to make sure we provide the effective levels of resources, staffing and the responsibility and clarity to deliver on the promises of prop b nominating. so with that we can take this then and many more steps together together. if there is a disagreement, we have the overwhelming mandate from the voters to move forward. and i know we have labor partners also who want to work with us and that have demanded. >> thank you, supervisor haney. and thank you, director short.

item 41. >> supervisor ronen? aye. supervisor safai. supervisor stefani. aye. supervisor walton. >> aye. supervisor chan. >> aye. supervisor haney. >> aye. supervisor supervisor mandelman, aye. >> mar, aye. melgar, aye. there are 11 aye's. >> without objection, that is approved. item 44. >> the final environmental impact report prepared for the 469 stevenson street project. >> thank you supervisor haney. i want to pull this out with a separate roll call vote. >> thank you. madam clerk, on item 44.

>> supervisor pes. >> ronen. safai, no. walton, aye. chan, aye. haney, no. mandelman, aye. mar, aye. and melgar. aye. there eight aye's and three no's. madam clerk, item 51. and a motion to approve the final number and a six residential condominium project at 668 through 678 page street and to adopt the appropriate

findings. >> thank you, madam clerk. supervisor preston. >> thank you, president walton. colleagues, this building has been before us in planning and in news quite a bit. you will recall this building was home to iris canada and other tenants. there was an eviction at the property and a long-term battle regarding iris canada's home. she died at 100 years old. and still in a dispute regarding her home and right to be there. the planning commission rejected this condo conversion and that was appealed to us and we affirmed their decision since

that time and the owners have gone to court and there is an intervening court decision that orders the city to allow this conversion and let me say that the final map approvals and the options are in dealing with them and at the same time i don't think we should let these pass without some comment on the fact that this six-unit building in what was once african-american neighborhood with a long-term tenant senior was bought for the purposes of folks making profit by getting all of the tenants out of the building including

iris canada. and resultings in the long-term plan of converting this building to condominiums. this is exactly the problem that we as a board have so often united to fight against through things like the right to counsel program and through other protections and limits on condo conversion and colleagues, i think it is important that we are very careful before we reward this kind of profit that places profit over people. i would like to have more time to consult with the city attorney about what the board's options are that makes this a standard or typical final map approval. so i would like to make a motion to continue this item to our -- continue to this to our january 4 meeting.

>> just for clarity, you want to continue or send to committee? >> i think we should continue it at this time and there may be some deadlines in terms of action that we need to meet, so to continue to the next meeting. >> second. >> thank you. motion to continue item 51 to the first meeting in january. seconded by supervisor peskin. >> motion to continue item 51 to january 4, 2022, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> a supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. aye. >> safai, aye. stefani, aye. walton, aye. chan, aye. supervisor haney, aye. supervisor mandelman, aye. supervisor mar, aye. and supervisor melgar, aye. there are 11 aye's.

>> thank you. motion to continue carries. >> madam clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items? >> no imperatives, mr. president. >> please read and present the in memoriam. >> today's meeting will be adjourned on behalf of president walton for the late mrs. michelle denise williams and mr. darren paul. and behalf of supervisor mandelman and the board of supervisors, president walton for the late honorable harry lowe. >> thank you, madam clerk. do we have anymore business? >> that concludes our business for the regular meeting schedule. >> colleagues t holiday season is a perfect time to reflect on our blessings and seek out ways to make life better for those around us.

have a wonderful holiday season and glorious new year. this meeting is adjourned.

>> everything is done in-house. i think it is done. i have always been passionate about gelato. every single slaver has its own recipe. we have our own -- we move on from there. so you have every time a unique experience because that slaver is the flavored we want to make. union street is unique because of the neighbors and the location itself. the people that live around here i love to see when the street is

full of people. it is a little bit of italy that is happening around you can walk around and enjoy shopping with gelato in your hand. this is the move we are happy to provide to the people. i always love union street because it's not like another commercial street where you have big chains. here you have the neighbors. there is a lot of stories and the neighborhoods are essential. people have -- they enjoy having their daily or weekly gelato. i love this street itself. >> we created a move of an area where we will be visiting. we want to make sure that the area has the gelato that you like. what we give back as a shop owner is creating an ambient

lifestyle. if you do it in your area and if you like it, then you can do it on the streets you like. >> right before the game starts, if i'm still on the field, i look around, and i just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical,

not knowing what the season holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful, but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013 season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply. i was so nervous, i never lived anywhere outside of fridays

fridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that al together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players. and then i'll talk to lucille, can you take the shirt gun to the bleachers.

i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team. we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day. renelle is the best. she's all about women in the workforce, she's always in our

corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful

learning >> president moran: please call the roll. [ roll call ] you have a quorum. >> president moran: thank you. before calling the first item, i like to announce that the san francisco public utilities commission acknowledges that storage of unseated lands located in the territory