>> chair peskin: good morning, everyone. we will reconvene the rules committee meeting that started on monday, january 24, 2022. i am the chair of the committee, aaron peskin, joined by vice chair raphael mandelman and supervisor chan. unfortunately, due to a severing of a fiberoptic cable, we had to recess the meeting at

that time. the m.t.a. claims that mitchell engineering was working for comcast, but i am working to get to the bottom of the finger pointing, and we will eventually get to the bottom of who owes who money. with that, we were in the middle of item number 4, the children's agency, and i will ask mr. young to read the blurb for items 1 through 3 and take public comment. so if you could read the afore mentioned blurb we will get those items out of the way.

>> clerk: yes. items 1 through 3 were acted upon at the meeting of january 24, 2022 before the meeting was recessed. to ensure public participation, public comment will be reheld for these matters. comments or opportunities for speakers during public comment period are available via phone by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2494-817-1812. then press pound and pound again. let me check and see -- >> chair peskin: i will add just by way of background that the committee did take action on all three items and recommend all three items to the board of supervisors for

approval. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on these three items on the consent agenda? >> clerk: we are checking. there are 13 listeners on the line but no one in line for public comment at this time. >> chair peskin: okay. public comment for items 1 through 3 is closed, and our action has been previously been taken on monday, and with that, colleagues, we were in the middle of establishing a charter amendment for a children's agency, and we are in the middle of robust discussions with supervisors ronen and preston, and we had heard from jill wynn and others. before we begin, are there any comments from my colleagues on the committee or cosponsors or

supervisor ronen? if not, let's go to public comment on item number 4. >> clerk: yes. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. operations will let us know. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to enter the queue. for those who have already done so, please wait until the system indicates your line has been unmuted. >> chair peskin: first speaker, please. >> hi. my name is [indiscernible] i'd like to thank the rules committee for taking the time to consider this valid measure. the measure passed thanks to grassroots effort and an extensive community engagement

process, and at this passage, thousands of community members waited on how funds could be allocated. we can't create a successful charter amendment in just a few months. it should have been informed by those who do this work every day and who have been impacted by it. i'd like to thank you, supervisors, for listening to the community and for amending the original language of this ledge lation. i hope this will continue to be a continual and collaborative process for an opportunity to help children, families, and victims in san francisco. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. this is debbie lerman from the san francisco children's network.

the charter amendment is from a community that fought to pass it. h.s.n. is concerned that this measure was developed without the participation of any community members or stakeholders, including families and the community based nonprofits that provide benefits for san francisco children and families. h.s.n. opposes it as drafted. while the measure has some laudable goals, this would create a new children's agency with a small group of political appointees holding control overall funding, including baseline children's funding in other civic departments. in doing so, the measure would eliminate or reduce the participation of other oversight bodies, such as the

service providers working group. we support this measure and appreciate supervisor melgar's amendment. we ask that any amendment to the children's fund go through an extensive community feedback process to determine if any recommendations are needed. thank you for hearing our comments this morning. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is [indiscernible] and i'm the executive partner for tandem learners and early learning. every year, our organization serves thousands of children and hundreds of agencies to

[indiscernible] and most of our services are concentrated in districts 6, 9, and 10. i want to thank the rules committee for considering the charter amendment and how the creation of an agency will affect the measure. i want to add my voice to the voices of others around the concern of lack of community engagement. [indiscernible] also, the city of san francisco is currently in the process of merging [indiscernible] to create the department of early childhood, and we need to be given an

opportunity to serve the children and families of children, and putting the [indiscernible] under one 'em -- umbrella will make it more difficult. at its core, the children's agency weakens the city's ability to focus much needed attention on early childhood learning and education. thank you for the opportunity to provide a public comment. >> chair peskin: thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is ashley rennick, and i'm here [indiscernible] and are generally enthusiastic about any effort to improve outcomes for children and family well-being. however, we believe that the process could benefit for more community engagement and are grateful that you have decided

to slow down the process to receive feedback from more voices. family support is a crucial component is improving outcomes for children. as the process moves forward, we want to focus on the whole family, not just the children but their caregivers. thank you for listening to the community and for your support. we look forward to hearing the comments and feedback on the initiative. >> chair peskin: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good morning. my name is george boling, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i do not support this amendment as written. i also want to thank former supervisor norman yee for his work on this item.

this is an effort at a power grab by the mayor. the amendment creates a large bureaucracy to work with a number of school age children. 13% of s.f. children are school age. that's 57,000 students. amendment details are scarce and vague. keep the stuffed -- sfusd independent and make it better internally. whether the ramifications of the amendment, i agree with supervisors ronen, peskin, and chan's opposition to this

amendment. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. >> clerk: could we get the next speaker, please. >> david pillpel. i have not gotten into the details, and i'm not sure that i fully understand the amendment that was offered on monday, but i do like the two ideas that i understand here to address city funding for the school district and to consolidate children's functions under a single agency. i also like the comments that i heard both monday and today. i do think that somebody should be done about city funding for the school district. i don't have the right solution, but i think something should be done there. in terms of consolidating

functions, i think this could add or at least have close ties with the youth commission, the children and families, the child and youth department, and the cdbg funding and perhaps others. there definitely should be more conversation here. i understand that there may be one charter amendment in june to address part of this and the other in november. i think that works, and i'd just note at the end here that there are differences between planning grants and operations in terms of children's services, but i do think that they can work together under one agency with different arms and appropriate oversight and advisory bodies and such, but that will take time to sort out and structure, which i support. thanks for listening.

>> chair peskin: next speaker. good morning. this is tess loborn. i want to thank you for looking at this proposed charter amendment, and i do think it's going in the right direction. overall, i feel that this is eliminating a lot of the community things that work and putting in a bureaucratic body. it also appears to me as something that was hatched in secret to not be a matter of transparency. further, it seems to me that a number of school board issues that came up, i think it's an

overreaction, so i urge you to vote against this charter amendment. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss wellborn. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is annabell ibanez. united educators of san francisco urges you to oppose the entire charter amendment because we don't see any reason for the board of supervisors to micromanage the board of education. in addition, the proposed amendment removes public input, and it's replaced with a

process that gives ultimate decision making power to the "agency," which is completely undemocratic and votes down our democracy. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is julie roberts fung and i am a parent and a member of the district oversight committee. i want to start by appreciating the [indiscernible] and survey organizations in opposing this measure. our kids stand pre-k, k, and nonprofits, and proposals should not file less than naturally. [indiscernible] piece funding and punish students and remove p.e. art, and access to

library. there is a mention of san francisco as a funder of sfusd. i would call that as an under funder as we have a low level, about 8% of the general fund going to our schools, one of the lowest levels in the state. i'm also concerned about the data sharing measures. sfusd follows firpa. i want to remind supervisions that the board of supervisors did not provide a summer together contract request over some of these concerns. at the same time, this measure would limit the board of education's ability to provide this role and now contracts up to $250,000. as an example, some of our nonprofits have made a deal

with tech partners to provide socio emotional programs on computers. how students are doing socially and emotionally is assessed by a computer, and it can follow them through their career, introducing them as -- to biased adults before they meet them. finally -- >> clerk: thank you. just wanted to remind the public that public comment is allocated to two minutes per public speaker. can we have the next public commenter, please. >> yes, hi. my name is june bug, and i'm a parent leader who worked on baby prop c back on 2019. we worked really hard to get it

on the ballot. now that funding is now available, i feel we don't need another ballot measure when we have baby prop c. i don't support how children first is written. it disrupts the strategic planning for the department of early childhood, and it hasn't had a chance to prove itself. i feel like it undermines all the work that we did to get baby prop c here and get it implemented, and i just do not think that this is an effective way for us to go. i'm also a former san francisco youth commissioner, and someone who was born and raced here, and from my expertise, i -- raised here, and from my expertise, i do not support it as it is written. i think we need to take what we

have in place and implement it. thank you so much. >> chair peskin: thank you so much. next speaker. >> this is [indiscernible] shaw. mayor breed's usual and customary modus operandi should come as no surprise. her usual sausage making comes with salmonella mushed in. it's clear this amendment needs

a complete rewrite because there's only three months until the deadline in april. it would not be enough time to let [indiscernible] new version elections department would need to publish this in play to facilitate mailing out the ballots and the voter guides. i recommend that you make a motion to table this or end the charter change and end this process. thank you.

>> chair peskin: thank you, mr. monette shaw. next speaker, please. >> clerk: hi. can we have the next speaker, please. okay. the speaker is silent on the call. we're going to return when we get a chance in public comment. can we have the next caller. >> good morning, board of supervisors. my name is [indiscernible] and i'm a member of parents work of san francisco. i'm calling to express my opposition to children first proposed ballot. i do not support it as it's

articulated because it's cutting funding for early childhood development. i also call to support baby prop c because there's no plans for funding for early childhood only. we really want the money to go to spend serving our children in san francisco. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is molly brown. i'm the mother of four grown children, and i live in district 1. i'm calling to voice my opinion and disappointment [indiscernible] as an original significant gatherer in 1990 for the first charter amendment

in dcyf, i can personally attest that these processes were community driven, exhaustive in their outreach, and written by some of the best minds in the department of children, youth, and families. the process by which this charter amendment comes before you follows no such processes. rather, consultants and government lobbyists funded this backing. that said, many of us do not believe that either of these amendments belong in the city's charter as a means of holding the board of education accountable already exists.

there are numerous advisory committees in place that could [indiscernible] similarly, the mayor could focus on improving our developmental commissions. we have options at our disposal that don't require charter amendments. thank you very much, supervisors, for your consideration and attention to this important conversation. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is alex, and i'm with

the children's council of san francisco. i want to thank you first of all for this charter amendment and how it's going to affect our children and families and thank you for seeing this amendment as it was written imperfect and more time must be allowed for community input and refinement. we know there are some amendments to this proposed amendment, but i want to say the fact that there seems to be this amended amendment on this ballot in november is worrisome. if that is the case, community input can only be considered until about may. i worry that this is still not going to be enough time to have robust community input. in the past, we've seen changes to the charter, but through a very rigorous and robust

stakeholder process which includes community meetings and community input, that can take months, and that's even without covid, something that we are currently go through. i think we need to come together to create a system for the children and families that we serve. so thank you all for your time, your effort, and your partnership. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name's maria [indiscernible] and i'm the organizer of parent voices. we passed baby prop c in june 2018, and we fine will he had dedicated source -- finally had dedicated source of early childhood funding. then it took time for it to be

released from a constitutional challenge, and then, covid. we understand the frustration of the mayor regarding this. however, the authors of the amendment -- the solution is not creating another layer of bureaucracy. it proposes coordination and transparency. we already have guidelines in place to do that, yet the process by which it was created contradicts its intent. a new ballot measure without any community input and a system that is vet complex is not the solution. it is because of the complexity that we cannot leave out the community voices, the parent voices, and provide our voices in this process. we appreciate the openness of the mayor and cosponsors in taking out all of the languages of children's agency and related provisions. we urge you to allow the

process to be done with input from the community and experts. there are certain low making processes that require detailed input because of its complexity and should not be put on the ballot. give the department of early childhood a chance to get off the ground and iron out its kinks. they need more staff operating on the ground, not another expensive layer of bureaucracy. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: i believe that was our last public commenter. just confirming. yes, that was our -- there are no other -- oh, there is one more who just jumped on. >> chair peskin: okay. no worries. >> good morning. this is margaret broadkin. i first want to thank supervisor ronen for her

brilliant comments on monday. i look forward to working with her in constructing a more responsive and expansive way to work with students. this is a contempt shown to the broad community of stakeholders who care about this city's kids. writing an amendment for nine months in the office of a political lobbyist is not the way to do this. when i talk to the mayor, she said she's concerned about the kids who never get our services. that's a legitimate top real problem we need to address together. nothing in either part of this

legislation addresses that. we need to achieve the noble goals that have not been adequately utilized. we have oversight bodies not fully appointed, ways to hold people fiscally accounted not utilized, and a body in the charter to do exactly what this amendment is trying to do and is supposed to be evaluated by the controller. that has not happened yet, so we should at least wait for that. government is hard and messy, but none of the problems are solved by adding a new layer of bureau that makes the system more political or by eight pages of behavior prescriptions for another branch of government. they're solved by leadership, imagination, much stronger grassroots voices, and using the tools and authority of elected officials and department heads already -- >> clerk: thank you.

we have one additional caller. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss broadkin, and i do note that you are the former department head of the department of children, youth, and their families. appreciate your remarks and associate myself with the remarks of supervisor ronen on monday. go ahead. next speaker. are there any other speakers? >> good morning. >> chair peskin: good morning. >> good morning. this is monica walters, and i'm the executive director of wee children's services. we service children throughout san francisco in all districts. our offices are located in supervisor peskin's district. i just wanted to say i followed all the comments in all the calls this morning. we much appreciate the opportunities to really take a

strong stand to support the department of early education as it's newly formed and give us at least a couple of years to get it up and going before we entertain any idea of changing the current structure. we stand behind the current capacity as it is now to coordinate in a transparent and community driven way, and we don't need another ballot initiative to change anything at this point. so i appreciate the opportunity to pause on this and to really give the community a chance to come together and change it as it is. >> chair peskin: thank you for your comment. are there any other comments on the children's fund amendment? >> clerk: yes, there's one more. >> supervisors, when it comes

to our children here in san francisco, we have not been fair to them, so i see that many of the supervisors come from the san francisco unified school district, and when you come from the san francisco unified school district, you bring a mentality that does not allow you to be a supervisor. the san francisco unified school district comes under the state of california. just because it says san francisco, it doesn't mean that's our burden. it's our burden because you may not be doing it as a supervisor, you may be doing it as a parent. but if you go to an

institution, for example, like the jesuits and look at how they educate their children and look at the san francisco unified school district, the san francisco unified school district board members and their superintendent, some of them are pathetic. who sticks to the point and who rambles and rambles and rambles because they're not educated on the issues, they cannot do needs assessment, and most importantly, they're not educated. they haven't gone to university, they haven't gone to the better schools. our children need the best.

>> clerk: your time has elapsed. >> chair peskin: thank you, speaker. are there any other commenters for this item? >> clerk: that was our last public commenter. >> chair peskin: all right. public comment, at least for now, is closed on item number 4. let me say something about that. relative to what ms. broadkin said, this is true, and it can be confirmed in filings that have been made at the s.f. ethics department, which are there for all to see, and while we cannot regulate the massive influx of money in elections, you can go to the sfpuc website

and see that phil halperin created a website, and you can see that 85,000 that was put into that committee, you can see the next day that a poll for $20,000 was committed. you can see the campaign consultants and the campaign. it's all there. by the way, there's nothing untoward about this. we run campaigns, and it costs money. on february 7, we'll consider any number of initiative

ordinances. recology, which -- or regulation of recology, which we have been talking about since the revolutions in the mohamed nuru scandal, and i think we are all landing on one, has not yet had a campaign committee opened. so this is all by way of saying that the cart has been before the horse for a long time. in the narrative or the competing narratives, it is very disconcerting that the mainstream media, while they want to focus on board of supervisors power grabs, and while political entities have every right to participate in

public political discussions are bombarding us with other items on this agenda that we'll talk about, there has nary been a word in the media about this power grab, and even more shocking, and i say this because it is true, and we all experienced it, the author of this charter amendment has not appeared before this legislative branch of government as charter law is charged with putting this or not putting this on the ballot. anyhow, if you are one of the members of the mainstream media, and you seem interested in writing articles about videos that somebody posted on the internet that have yet to

even be considered by this committee that have yet to be proven how mayors appoint to vacancies and that have been part of the political discussions for decades, you might want to cover this issue, too, because there are two narratives. because that's why we have checks and balances of governments, and that's why we have legislative branches. anyhow, enough of that. i will turn it over to supervisor melgar, who would like to duplicate one file, continue the other to the call of the chair. supervisor melgar, the floor is yours. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, chair peskin. i will start by thanking all the folks who commented on

this. universal child care in san francisco is a really important goal for families, for gender equity, for infrastructure, for our economy in every way, and it's always been viewed like a women's issue, like a kids' issue, and it's not. this is about the kids. i hear you, supervisor peskin, and i'm trying to listen to this and make good policies. so with that, i would ask the committee to move my amendment for this discussion, which is not over. whatever what happens in this committee and subsequently at the board of supervisors have been vetted and worked on with

the e.c.e. community and folks in the community extensively. they don't address all of the issues, but they will at least set a baseline for the conversation going forward, so i respectfully ask that you move those amendments. there is one amendment, and it is just a clarification, and one of the commenters addressed that, and because of that, i want to talk about it. and that is in section 15.121. we are adding a few words to clarify that the government's requirement also included data sharing agreement on page 26, lines 12 to 16, and we've circulated that. a data sharing agreement, while the sfusd does have specific laws that protect the privacy of students, an agreement by definition is both ways.

so we're not imposing that on the -- or a requirement of that from the sfusd that it cannot give. so by that usage, there has to be a definition how it can and cannot be shared. when there have been schools that required this sharing, there was an extensive process, an m.o.u. that was reached between the sfusd, the gardner center of stanford university, and the c.b.o.s to make sure that the sfusd must agree to in terms of federal and state laws are contained in that data sharing agreement. and i know this is something that everyone, you know, within

the school district and dcyf understand, and so that is the amendment, but this clarifies what we are talking about. so i would respectfully request that you move my amendments and weigh-in on the whole thing later on, and i again want to thank, you know, maria su at the mayor's office and my colleague, supervisor ronen, for her work and the money hours that we've spent on the phone, talking about these issues, and i think this is an item that we owe to the kids of san francisco, and i hope we can continue to involve the community's voices and get this right. thank you, chair peskin. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor melgar. so it sounds like we've got a couple of actions to take, and

it is my belief -- correct me if i am wrong, counsel or clerk -- that supervisor melgar has the right to duplicate the file even though she's not a member of the committee. do i have that right, mr. young? >> clerk: that, i'm not completely sure if a member not on the committee has that right. >> chair peskin: if she doesn't [indiscernible] i will duplicate the file. >> supervisor melgar: okay. supervisor mandelman also agrees to do it. >> chair peskin: okay. i just -- sorry for delving down into the minutiae of the process, and now, we don't have to worry about if a sole person has the right or doesn't have the right.

and then, on the original file, i will make a motion to continue it to the call of the chair. on that motion, mr. young, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to continue the original file to the call of the chair -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> chair peskin: and then, the mayor's second cosponsor, supervisor mandelman, is welcome to make the amendment to the duplicated file that is still before us, which amendment in essence for those of us that don't remember what happened on monday, which basically, for lack of a better word, guts the charter amendment and removes almost all of it with the exceptions of the amendments having to do

with sfusd, which weirdly enough, we can kind of sort of govern through our charter, even though they are a subdivision of the state of california. but that is a weird vest of history back when the government was part of the schools. so supervisor mandelman, if you -- and i don't know. are you -- is there anybody on the roster to speak? okay. all right. so why don't we go to mandelman and then ronen or -- all right. >> commissioner mondejar: all right. i will move the amendments that supervisor melgar brought to us on monday and again today. >> chair peskin: all right. and then supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you.

i kind of want to continue a little bit where supervisor or chair peskin left off around the media silence around this charter amendment and the extraordinary things that we've seen on this committee and the mayor didn't send anyone to talk about this amendment, which was kind of shocking. i've never seen that before. and then, the second thing i've never seen before is 100% of public comment. and this wasn't just members of the public who don't work in this area, this was a broad cross section of groups, unions, education advocates, former school district board members, former supervisors, former directors of dcyf. i mean, i've never seen a unanimous opposition of a

charter amendment like this before in my, you know, ten years in this building working at the board of supervisors. it's pretty extraordinary, and it is pretty extraordinary of the silence from the press that's sitting out there this day. but what i want to focus on is how proud i am of this committee, how proud i am of the board of supervisors and this community because guess what? separation of powers work. democracy works; that when you have a public forum and a way for the public and a separate branch of government to analyze a piece of legislation that comes before us from a different set of government, you get transparency, you get dialogue, you get a deep discussion into an issue that's very important today. so contrary to the mainstream

pressing that's out there that i don't understand because i feel like i've been more collaborative with the mayor than i ever have in the last ten years that i've worked in the board of supervisors and with schools, it's something that i watch closely. i want to thank my colleagues on the board of supervisors. i want to thank the individuals that i have the pleasure of working with, supervisor melgar, and your incredible

legislative aide, jen lowe. i just wanted to say publicly that i enjoy working with you, and i'm really enjoying taking what you created as a floor and turning it in -- i hope into something really collaborative and visionary that we can put before voters in november to really change the status quo for kids. and with this, our schools are in a critical state at the moment -- our public school system. it's significantly damaged, and we just cannot let that stand. this is, again, i'll say, the most important agency we have in society, that we can get the

level playing fields that all of us deserve in this society, and i'm just -- i'm so glad as a board and as a city that we're tuque used on doing everything in our power to help strengthen this critical institution, and i'm really happy that we are setting a tone going forward of mutual respect, accountability, and collaboration, and i look forward to continuing to work on this. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor ronen, on those very positive ending comments. why don't we call the roll on supervisor mandelman's amendments to the duplicated file. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to amend the duplicated file -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes

without objection. >> chair peskin: and then, i will make a motion to continue the duplicated file to our next meeting of monday, january 31. on that motion, roll call, please. >> clerk: yes, on that motion to continue as amended -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> chair peskin: don't go away, supervisors. the next item needs to be called, and you're both involved in that -- oh, okay. or i guess supervisor ronen's going to go, but supervisor melgar can't get from here, and she still has two cosponsors left. so with that, thank you, supervisor ronen. mr. clerk, could you read item number 5. >> clerk: item 5 is a charter amendment to amend the charter

of the city and county of san francisco to revise the duties, competition, and method of appointment for members of the building inspection commission, and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, at an election to be held on june 7, 2022. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. clerk. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, and thank you for your partnership, along with supervisor mandelman. this charter amendment seeks to reform the process that the oversight body, the building commission is selected. and it just brings it in line with the process that other charter commissions follow. for example, the planning commission and the police commission.

the charter amendment will mirror that process in that the commissioners will be split between the mayor and the presidents of the board, but the difference is that it will go through a review process by this committee as the board of supervisors, and we will weigh-in on all of the appointments. we have received e-mails from a form letter generator, you know, as you had mentioned, supervisor peskin, opposing any changes to the appointment process, saying how this is antidemocratic, to allow the board of supervisors to interview candidates and vote for the appointments. but let me just point out that this is the public's way to weigh-in, just like we did with the last charter amendment, that folks can give their three minutes' worth of comments on individual appointments. the current system does not

allow for that, either from the president of the board or the mayor. it is done behind closed doors, and people don't get to weigh-in at all nor look at qualifications or history, which has led to some unfortunate appointments that we have all read about in the paper. currently, again, also, we have a situation where the regulators, the regulated are the regulators of their own industry. this creates a potential conflict of interest, and it's set up by our current charter language, and so this charter amendment seeks to undo that. i believe that allowing the public to vote in the june election on a new system of appointments and having those processes where the public can call in or come in -- we'll get there one day -- is the

original definition of democracy. colleagues, there are a couple of amendments that i'd like to put on the record and i'd like one of you to move them. i'm suggesting a change because tenants are often most affected by the building code issues and building inspection. right now, we have one tenancy on the b.i.c., and there's no reason why that emphasis of members concerned with safety and stability shouldn't apply to all members. additionally, a section was added because we have an unintended conflict with supervisor chan's item, 211287,

if it passes. so on page 9, beginning with line 19, in the event that this measure and another measure relating to the duties, competition, qualification, and methods of appointment of the members of the b.i.c. appear on the same municipal election ballot, the provisions of such other measures shall be deemed in conflict with this measure. in the event that this measure shall receive a greater number of affirmative votes than the other measure, the provision that this measure shall prevail in their entirety and each and every point of the other shall be null and void in the event it pertains to the building inspection commission. i want to thank deputy city attorney robb kapla and ann pearson for their assistance in

drafting this report, and i appreciate your support. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor melgar, and i really appreciate your leadership on this issue and want to put it in some historical context, which is the department of building inspection, which is, for decades -- many, many decades, was actually a bureau within the department of public works as a result of a 1994 charter amendment that was actually not put on by the board of supervisors. it was actually put on through another mechanism that was used by people in the city and in the state. [please stand by]

narratives and counter narratives, i just wanted to note that while we are receiving these form e-mails from folks, including the funder and owner of one of these online blogs, mr. michael moore himself sent one of those e-mails that objected to this charter amendment, calling it a power grab. when if you actually read the instrument that is before us, it actually returns power to the

executive, the mayor, in so far as it will finally once again give the mayor authority over choosing a department head, which authority has been lacking since 1994. that is very, very important. yes, it comes with board of supervisors confirmation powers over mayors' nomination to this commission. i note that previous mayors have appointed without any oversight, without any transparency, without any power of confirmation or vetting, which is the way the 1994d.b.i. charter amendment works, individuals including, but not limited to santos, who we known to be a crook for many, many years and now has been in -- indicted by the united states

government. sadly, this city could not figure out how to indict him before the feds got him. murphy has also exhibited similar, unethical, if not illegal, if not criminal behavior. he was appointed by a previous mayor. i don't think they would have been confirmed. having that check and balance is important. finally, i will conclude before we hear from committee members in my -- my chat button does not work on this computer so you have to raise your hand. i will also note that the role of this board of supervisors under our charter, as it relates

to charter amendments is to ask the voters if they see fit to vote in favor of charter amendment. we don't get to change the charter. we have the opportunity to put something on the ballot and ask the voters the question. that is an important distinction in these narratives about board of supervisors power grab. we get to ask the voters what they think. when willie brown was the mayor and the board of supervisors asked the voters if they wanted to split -- and i say this in advance of the next item we are about to consider, the appointments for the all powerful and mighty planning commission and board of appeals and subject all of them to confirmation by the board of supervisors, the voters said

yes. i defy anybody to say that the planning commission and board of appeals are not better, are not fairer, are not better thought of today than they were when willie brown appointed all seven of the planning commissioners and they served at his pleasure. with that little walk down memory lane, are there any members of this committee who would like to speak to supervisor mel's amendment that is before us? vice chair mandelman, the floor is yours. >> thank you chair peskin and i want to thank supervisor melgar and supervisor ronen on your work on this charter amendment. we're going to talk about many amendments that think of the proper amendments between the chair and the board of

supervisors. i think the conversation we just had is related to this. i think we all agree that although we love this city and we are proud of the many things that the city does well and our city government does well, that city government is failing to deliver services to our residents in the way we want to see that happen. i think that you know, whether i'm supporting them or not, the measures that are being considered today are efforts to try to figure out a way to make san francisco city government a government we can be proud of and serves people not only without corruption, but efficiently and effectively. and i think that i am supporting this charter amendment. i think that from my perspective, it's the beginning -- and i believe that

supervisor melgar shares this view. she may have said something like this. i think that all of us who are co-sponsoring this belief, i think the mayor's office also believes that we need to have a bigger conversation about the department of building inspection. later we will be considering a proposed amendment on housing production. i can think of nothing more important than moving san francisco to produce more housing than fixing our department. that's not about corruption, but we need to have a function in city government that can turn around permits in a timely and effective way. the failure to do that has annoyed san franciscans for decades, but it's worse than it has been ever, i think. we need to get to the bottom of that.

i don't think this charter amendment does it. i think it moves in a better direction. i think we need to have a bigger and hon going conversation, but a conversation that leads to action soon on broader reforms that this department is not so siloed so that the reform of the department does not get sabotaged, so that we are actually able to move permits in the way that i think the voters would reasonably expect. so, i don't -- you know, i think -- this is not a massive power grab. this is a minor, in so far that it limit it is power of the mayor, it does it in a very minor way along with limiting the power of the president of the board of supervisors by the way. i think that aspect of this is not one that i am concerned about and the other aspect of this change, i think makes a lot of sense, which is why i am

supporting it and cosponsoring it. thank you supervisor melgar again. >> thank you supervisor mandelman, supervisor chan. if there are no questions, we will go to public comment. >> anyone who wants to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, id24948171812 and then press pound twice. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until they say you're unmuted and you can begin your comments. looks like we have 16 people waiting on the line with 4 in line for public comment. can we have our first caller

please? >> good morning. my name is jerry and i served on the 2013 civil grand jury that issued a highly critical report of d.b.i. and the building inspection commission. i strongly support the charter amendment under agenda item 5. i have attended monthly meetings for the last 9 years. a building inspection commission controlled by contractors, developers, and structural engineers have been an obstacle, implementing long needed changes to address the extensive corruption at the department of building inspection and depicts failure to implement new systems and processes that make d.b.i. more effective and transparent. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>>. >> caller: supervisors, i heard you speak. you are speaking in generalities. so, i think we should first define what is a mission objective of the department of building inspection. if you know that, then you know all the things they said they would be doing, soft stories, changing this, changing that, none of it has been done. while you supervisors have an opportunity again and again and again and the public came before y'all to the appeals process, overlooking the other way. now we want a charter amendment. okay, fine. who will set the tone for

infrastructure and how we attend it? oh, if y'all have the impir can data how that will be done -- empirical data how that will be done and how it will cost, then you will have taken magic steps and had focused discussion. you have not. all you have spoken in generalities. some are giving the chronological history, that's fine. i attended those meetings. i was there live. so on and so forth. what's the mission objective of the department of building inspection? what timeline do you ensure that we, the taxpayers, when the

stimulus money comes, infrastructure -- >> thank you. next speaker. >> caller: good morning, this is anastasia. i'm a senior tenant in district 8 and member of san francisco's tenants union who had their fair share of dealings with the building inspection commission. i really like this charter amendment and support it wholeheartedly. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> caller: coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, speaking on my own behalf in strong support. this is long overdue. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> caller: hello, this is tess,

for identification purposes, the neighborhood council. i think this is much needed. i appreciate that. two other remarks made by supervisors, i would point out that giving out permits is only one aspect. having proper inspections of buildings during the construction process and when there are questions about the actual status of a building that has already been completed, those violations, especially as they effect tenants in our city. those are functions that are very important and i would say almost more important, making sure the building -- that any construction is done to the permit and that violations are properly taken cared of. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> caller: david again, so i support this idea. a couple of comments in case this helps for amendments. i preferred staggered four year terms than two year terms. i think two year terms creates more appointments and process and i think four year staggered terms makes more sense in general. i would try to move all of the language that is now in appendix d to section 4.121 to consolidate all of the building inspection provisions, and move them to 4.121. in general, as it relates to item 6 and also here, i think the mayor and board of supervisors president should appoint not less than 30 days before a scheduled vacancy occurs or no more than 30 days,

calendar days after an unscheduled vacancy occurs and in both cases, the board of supervisors should approve or reject such appointments within 30 calendar days of an appointment being made. so, as to maintain continuity in offices, to promote quorum, all sorts of reasons so we don't have vacancies in commission seats that extends for months and in some cases, years. that hasn't necessarily happened at b.i.c., but it has happened in other cases and i would like to shorten the amount of time in that way. thanks for listening. >> next speaker please.

>> i'm getting an update. the caller is not responding to unmuting. that was our last caller. >> caller: i think i spoke. i spoke. i'm not going to speak twice, unless you want me to. >> that's good. public comment is closed. thank you again supervisor melgar, you have offered one amendment, which i will move and on that described amendment that has been circulated to us, a roll call please and we will continue this item on monday. on the first motion, mr. young. >> on the motion to amend, supervisor chan. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye.

>> peskin. >> aye. >> tomorrow, the agenda for monday's meeting will be publicly accessible and you can review all the amendments made today so you will be in a position to make comments on those come monday on the motion to continue this item as amended, a roll call please. >> to continue the matter as amended to the january 31st rules committee meeting. supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes to continue as amended. >> before you call the next item, i want to remind members of the public that we will be meeting on monday, starting at 9:00 a.m.

so that hopefully we will be able to get through that calendar and i will be able to attend the land use committee at 1:30. i want to thank the chair of the land use committee supervisor melgar, for canceling when we were supposed to deal with all these issues but then they cut the fiberoptics cable. with that, next item please. >> yes, item number 6, the charter amendment. first draft to amend the charter to split the power to make appointments to the following bodies between the mayor and board of supervisors. airport commission, arts commission, civil service commission, commission on the environment, commission on the status of women, disability and aging services commission, fire commission, health commission, human rights commission, human services commission, library commission, municipal

transportation, board of directors, recreation and parks commission, and performing arts centerboard of trustees subject to mayor's appointments, and the small business commission, to approval by the board of supervisors and provide the appropriate authorities mayor or board of supervisors as applicable, and specify types of functions that the city administrator may receive and any agency designated by ordinance authorizes and reviews city programs and services and practices to make recommendations to board of supervisors and department space on those reviews, prohibit from placing functions under the city administer by ordinance, and authorizing the city administrator to recommend removal of any department head to the mayor or commission and requiring a mayor or commission to act on the recommendation

within 30 days and election to be held on june 7, 2022. >> all right. supervisor chan. >> thank you chair peskin. thank you so much for hearing about this item today. i really like to start out by thanking the co-sponsor of this measure, ronen, peskin, and preston. i also want to thank some of our community members that have submitted their public comments through e-mail in support of those measures. i think that i want to start out to say the first meeting since we took office at the board of supervisors, when we were given the opportunity to do roll call introduction, the first thing i did was to submit a letter inquiry, specifically about the role and function of our city

administrator. it is because based on my almost two decades of experience in city government, i have long recognized that there are some structural changes that are needed to be evaluated and to look at how we can change our government for the better. i share frustrations with my community and my constituents that we know that city government can function better. let's face it, you know, san francisco has over $13 billion city budget. we struggled to deliver basic public services. political cronism and lack of transparency has fostered a long time in city hall. this is not something we have long suspected. federal investigations, our own controllers audits have confirmed this. in the wake of these investigations and revelations, this body, the board of

supervisors, have introduced and even passed a series of reform to shine a brighter light into our government's inner workers to improve our response and operations and to help restore the public faith. i really do believe that our work is not done yet. what we're proposing with this ballot measure is not a silver bullet to problem solve everything, but i do believe this is a critical piece of legislation that we can improve accountability and strengthen our system. it's the reason why we introduced this charter amendment and i'm calling it the good and clean government act. it's supposed to bring greater government accountability in two key ways. first, the measure restores some of the independence to our city administrators' office, allowing us to book us on delivering city services and improving operation, free from political

cronism. so that's a key part. we know that because that city administrators has oversights of over 26 different offices, over 900 million of our budget, we really need some independence of that city administrator's office and to make sure we can function better. so that's one key point. this measure also mandates accountability to require the functions and operations of each department under the city administrator's office be defined by an ordinance. this an opportunity for us in the event that this ballot measure, obviously if it gets on the ballot and the voter support and approve, it will give our city, our city administrator, the office the opportunity to define by ordinance to figure

out a way to make our city government function better through a public process, through a public hearing. our public comments on it, give feedback, and figures out what can be done better with our city government. now, the other part of it is what i believe, what some want to say as a power grab. i firmly believe that it is because those who think that is because they want to maintain a status quo. they have been benefitted from the way the city government works and how it did not work. they were able to benefit from that. what we're trying to do is just to insert checks and balances to the oversights of our city department by sharing appointments between the

legislative branch and the executive branch. this will really broaden the horizon and broaden a pool of quality candidates that can be part of the city government and to make decisions along with us, and have more diversity and voices and checks and balances, more eyes on the way we operate, the better it is. at the end of the day, it is about adding accountability and transparency to the way we operate with these charter commissions who actually approve all contracts, make personnel decisions and looks at our city budget. we need checks and balances in all levels of city government. this is why we are calling it, this measure a good and clean government act. it strikes the right balance between cleaning up our charter, delivering better public services, and increasing transparency in our inner function, there by improving the public trust in government and in us. so i ask this committee for your

support. i do have some amendments similar to what supervisor melgar has made. to understand that both measures are addressing a charter commission like the building and inspection commission. so i ask that this committee -- so i ask this committee to consider the amendment and i am also happy to propose my amendments now and put the motion on the floor or i'm happy to come back and do that after public comment. >> why don't you just put him on the floor. >> great, thank you chair peskin. the amendment is a standard preemptive clause. it mirrors the language that

supervisor melgar has placed that you can find this language on page 49 and starting online 19. that is actually all i have right now. would you like me to read through the amendments itself? >> no, that's sufficient. supervisor mandelman, any comments? if not, we will go to public comment. go ahead. >> yes, i think maybe just questions. i absolutely agree. i mostly agree with chair peskin's analysis earlier that the changes to a select few commissions moving to share appointment authority between the mayor and the board has led to commissions that better

represent san franciscans and san francisco's values in particularly, in so far they're considering questions of development, where i think often any mayor's administration is likely to be in a somewhat different position than the board of supervisors and the neighborhoods that we represent and it is good and right and correct i think to have that tension play out in these bodies that are improving development projects that effect, you know, the future of all these communities. i think there are other places where you know, it certainly makes sense to have a department, even a department that is supposed to respond, be directed by the mayor to still have representation from people appointed by the board of supervisors. it's a check and an opportunity

for folks to be there and point out -- to make the points that might otherwise not be made. even if they can't carry the day, it's like having a minority in a supreme court opinion. sometimes the opinion that is expressed by the minority is the right one and will be accepted by the majority at some point. i believe in that and i could imagine supporting it on a broader scale. this is a very broad scale. i noticed that it doesn't include two commissions that i think, where i think we at this point, i mean i didn't support the ballot measure that created these two commissions, but the board put before the voters to commissions that may not make a ton of sense. i may be wrong about this. i may be thinking about it incorrectly, but we are moving forward. i have voted following the will

of the voters to establish a new department of public works and new department of streets and sanitation. each of those departments carrying out functions that are undeniably executive, that any san franciscan can expect to yell at the mayor when either their public works projects are aren't moving in a disruptive or terrible way or their trash -- well, it's not that their trash isn't getting picked up, supervisor peskin is solving that problem, but the sidewalks are gross and the trash bins are falling apart. the buck stops with the mayor on those things. yes, well it has and yet we are in the process -- we given the voters the process where the mayor won't have the majority. the mayor will appoint to, the

controller will appoint one, and i don't know how that will work. if we're thinking that structure matters to governance, i continue to have grave concerns about that structure. i'm curious, given that there are all these commissions where supervisor chan is proposing to move in the direction of giving us a minority voice on all these commissions, did you have any thought about addressing public works and streets and sanitation? >> to chair peskin and supervisor mandelman. i appreciate the question. there are two of them. one is the sanitation commission and the other is the sheriff oversight commission. those are the two newly established that we did not touch upon or addressed in this ballot measure. the oversight commission, the majority of the appointments and

then sanitation commission as you just stated, two from the mayor and two from the board and then one is the controller's appointment. we did not include those two first because it was really recently voter approved. in my opinion, that in the context of some may say this is a power grab, the mayor -- in the ballot measure, the pull is -- this is not about the executive power or the legislative power or even the mayor as a person. this is not politics or personal. at the end of the day, this is to streamline the process that has been long standing. skinly we see that there is a commission that is a majority appointed by the mayor and half

appointed by the legislative breach, so let's streamline these charter commission that is consistent. in fact, we're saying the executive branch still has, you know, they can appoint their appointees, the board has consistently all across -- because right now, there are 30 days, some 60 days where the board of supervisors can approve or reject the mayoral appointment so they choose to go through the rules committee, which you already know that. now we're saying consistently, let's all just say 60 days, understanding that there is legislative recess, there are other challenges, so if you really look deep into the ballot measure, or this legislation, you will find that the language all across is to be consistent, at least for the majority of it really and to make us function better as a city government and i think that when you

streamline -- [inaudible] >> -- a transparency for the general public, so understand how government works. for example, now that all these appointments, when they're vacant -- by the way, they will be staggered. it's not that immediately the minute that the ballot measure approves that all these appointments are freed up. we understand how city government works and the challenges and the time it takes to make these appointments and changes. we're saying that these are going to be -- when these appointments term out, they will be posted online just like all these appointments that the board would make, make it all consistent. mayoral appointments will be posted online. general public will see vacancies, will understand. this process is taking place and happening. they can weigh in. so, the goal ultimately is

transparency and accountability, but really streamline the process to make city government work better and for the general public to understand the process better. i hope that answers your question. >> through the chair, thank you to my colleague, supervisor chan. >> thank you. >> and i really appreciate this larger discussion, even if it's difficult and uncomfortable. i do want to note that san francisco is a unique entity. if you look at the other 57 counties in the state of california, the board of supervisors has an executive that is under their direct authority, san francisco evolves very differently. that county administrator is the one who is charged with oversight of all of the departments and san francisco, interestingly enough, started with a board of supervisors and without a mayor.

the reason if you are interested in the minutia of city government, that our department is department number one and all of the departments, including the mayor's office are subsequent numbers, it's because in the beginning there was a board of supervisors and there wasn't a mayor. so, we evolved over the last getting to 200 years and along the way, the city had a much stronger county manager function in the form of the city administrator and those powers were fundamentally truncated in the 1996 charter. so if you go back in history, the big charter change that happened was the 1932 charter, which was the anticorruption charter that was dealing with

the battle of days from when eugene schmidt and the majority of the board of supervisors were indicted and convicted of insider trading, extortion, bribery, you name it. the 32 charter was the fix to that. much of the 32 charter survived in the massive overall that was done in 1995 and approved by the voters in 1996. amongst those was -- we already had a strong system of government at that time. we created a super strong mayor system of government and diminished the role of the city administrator. so i think all of this is worth a public conversation aimed at what i think there is complete agreement on and i think this is where supervisor chan, as i may be as bold coming from what supervisor mandelman reinforced, how do we make the department's

function better to keep the streets clean. it's not just that we have to stop mohammed from being corrupt, that's important, but what is as important is making sure that these governments are, you know, dealing with homelessness and street cleaning and all the basics of what government is about. i think we all agree that we're having challenges on that front and i think certainly the portions of the charter amendment about reempowering a city administrator, county manager is worth a public discussion. uncomfortable as the discussion may be, because when you start saying things aren't working well and these functions are all under the executive, it takes on a tone as though we are personally challenging the chief executive. these are larger conversations

than who happens to be the mayor and who happens to be a member of the board of supervisors or the department head. this is really about whether the structural changes will lead to better delivery of services. so with that, why don't we open this up to public comment and i just want to say vice chair mandelman that in a few minutes, i have to -- as a cloak says, bounce to swear in the new board of directors of the chinese hospital. i will continue through this device to chair the meeting as i transit to the chinese hospital on jackson street. for a little brief time as i am swearing them in, i am going to ask you to take over as chair until i leave that and then reassume my duties as chair. with that mr. young, why don't we open this up to public

comment. >> yes, members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call, meeting i.d.24948171812. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and then you may provide your comment. we currently have 11 people online waiting to speak. >> first speaker please. >> caller: ilene, speaking on my own behalf, in strong support. this is long overdue. i don't see the port commission on the list and would encourage the committee to amend the legislation so that all enterprise departments are

included. thank you. >> that is complicated because that is a function of state law and the burton act. next speaker please. >> caller: george supervisors. aussie here, thank you supervisor chan for introducing this charter amendment, a much needed charter amendment to allow one person, a mayor that is sometimes not even elected to apoint people to these boards and commissions is the height of hypocrisy for a city that prides itself for its democratic ideals. we had three mayors that were not initially elected and were instead appointed to different circumstances. sometimes the executive branch of our government is filled with

someone that is even not elected by the people. if this person has the extraordinary power to appoint their own people to countless boards and committees, this is not democracy. when you allow a mayor to have this much power, completely unchecked, you foster cronism and corruption in the government. to quickly respond to the points of supervisor mandelman, yes, the current structure to appoint a new commission has not been tested yet, but the previous system was definitely not working. so let's give this a shot and let's see how this one works. we had other commissions that are being appointed, other commissioners that are being appointed the same way with a minority of them being appointed by the board of supervisors and

the mayor still gets a majority, which i wish there would be another charter amendment to fix that too. that's why we really urge you to support this charter amendment and get the full support of the board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> caller: good morning again supervisors. this is patrick. i fully support the proposed charter amendment introduced by supervisor chan and cosponsored by supervisors ronen, peskin, and preston. i would suggest two amendments to this legislation, one introduce a standard term of service for each of these boards in connection to a standardized four year term.

also, introduce term limits of a maximum of two-four year terms. take for example the health commission. in 1989, the mayor appointed dr. edward chow to the health commission. he has been repeatedly reappointed to the health commission ever since. he has now served consecutively for 33 years. in 1997, then mayor willie brown appointed david sanchez to the health commission. sanchez was repeatedly reappointed to the health commission and then served consecutively for 22 years until he resigned in 2019, a year before he died in december 2020. i believe that just as we have

term limits for elected offices, in the city, the state, the federal government, that we should also have term limits on boards and commissions that are developing and implementing major city programs. beyond that, i recommend that the rules committee pass supervisor chan's good government -- >> thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: good morning board of supervisors, my name is richard. i strongly, strongly support this charter amendment. i follow m.t.a., except for one or two commissioners who don't

ask tough questions. the street division needs to be reoverhauled and this would go a little step in trying to reform m.t.a. and have the directors have more control over the budget and operation and making sure we're getting efficient services. i don't think we are. i think this would help in a way and would also open it up to more, you know, the candidate etc., the three supervisor candidates would have to go before the rules committee and to have them build a case for themselves. the other reason i support this and i won't name commissioners' names, that some of the commissioners when they leave one commission, they go to another commission. i know at least two commissioners that have gone from one commission to another one and i don't think that's

fair. you know, these commissioners should be open to the public and have interviews and you know, when you apply, you don't even get a response from the mayor's office. so, i think you know, there needs to be a broad spectrum of commissioners appointed to these commissions. so, i strongly support this charter amendment. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: hi, this is renee. i'm just calling in support of supervisor chan's amendment. also, i'm not clear on how the rent board appointments, if they are just mayoral, if that's the case, please add the rent board. i have recent memory of the

appointment, who i'm sure he is a nice guy, but has no previous experience in rent issues so that's a big red flag, looking at giving the mayor, allowing the mayor to continue to make these appointments. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: so, as has been stated, in 1996, a charter amendment brought the city administrator under the executive branch. that has been stated, the legislative branch is number one when you read the charter, but is number three when it comes to the functioning. now, the city administrator for

example is the head of the contract monitoring division, which has no commission. the human rights commission has a commission so if the city administrator sits down with the mayor, they can do whatever they want to when they meet the developer. that's why we have so much corruptio. what i seen see in the commissions is that we knowingly appoint corrupt people. so again and again, the board of supervisors can do something about it, but because they play second fiddle, or i would say fourth fiddle, nothing happens.

so, after ben lee, whoever came after him, i won't name him, all those city administraors are corrupt including the present city administrator. thank you very much. >> thank you, can we have the next caller please. >> caller: good morning supervisors, catherine. thank you so much supervisor chan for appointing and splitting the appointment process. the city commissions are responsible for a multitude of discussions that affect the lives of san franciscans everyday. i have to be frank here. it's clear that many take their marching orders directly from a mayor or are so closely align with the mayor that there is no possibility for the commissioners. so the public attending meetings before those commissions is like talking to a brick wall.

many people do not even bother to attend certain commission hearings because they know they will be ignored or even worse, and i heard this, disparaged by commissioners who feel invulnerable in their positions. the commission is supposed to provide oversight of their appointments but when there is a system where they appoint the department heads and the commissioners, it's inevitable. opponents may say the public can elect a different mayor if we don't like the appointments. rarely does anyone vote for or against a mayor solely on the basis of a commission appointment. this measure will help revive interest for the interest in getting involved in our city government and hopefully lead to commissioners who reflect a broader diversity of opinions. please support this charter amendment. thank you. >> thank you. can we have the next caller?

>> caller: hello, this is anastasia. i would like to thank supervisor chan for putting this charter amendment forward. the split appointment authority is a good government and the powers and duties of the city administrator needs to be considered. thank you. >> thank you. can we have the next caller? >> caller: yeah, hi, good morning. my name is paulina. i'm calling in to oppose this charter amendment while i thank supervisor chan for you know, the proposal, i do think that unlike some of the comments -- you know, first of all, this is heavily political. i think this does have to do with who the mayor is. also, i find the timing of this

very curious. thank you. >> thank you. can we have the next caller please? >> caller: george, my name is jerry. i strongly support the charter amendment. supervisor chan has accurately explained the abuses that this charter amendment is intended to fix. the current imbalance of power that favors the mayor needs to be corrected. the proposed amendment does not subvert voter rights. thank you very much. >> thank you. can we have the next caller please? >> caller: yes, good morning. my name is linda schaffer. i am an environmental justice advocate, formally a resident of

district 10. now i have migrated to the other side of the city and now live in district 1. first of all, i would like to thank supervisor chan along with others for having proposed this charter amendment. my reasons, basically i just think it makes common sense as an advocate for environmental issues, i have had the experience of attending many commission meetings and judging some of the questions that the commissioners raised or the comments they made, i started to wonder how these people have been appointed to the commission and what experiences they have had that qualify them to serve on this commission. basically i think this makes common sense. it broadens the outreach

mechanism through which potential applicants for seats on these bodies can register their interest, and to me, the broader, the net, the more varied the applicants, the wider and more varied the voices that will eventually be represented on these commissions. so, thank you again and i ask that the committee supports this amendment. thank you. >> thank you. can we have the next caller please? >> caller: good morning. i oppose the charter amendment. i appreciate the claim to want to simplify government, but this particular charter amendment adds players of complexity and takes authority from the executive branch and gives it to

the legislative branch. that is plain and simply a power grab, which everyone here wants to avoid that designation but it's an accurate designation. that's what you're trying to doing. it's taking power from the executive and give it to the legislative. the powers are delineated, and they have been this way for a long time. there is no real reason to change that up. if you want to make a difference, i would say there is a charter agreement that i would propose, an amendment that prohibits elected officials and commissioners from serving for a period of time and we wouldn't have people that are currently say a supervisor in one direct running for assembly when they only been serving their constituency for three years and haven't done anything good.

that would be a really helpful charter agreement. adding more bureaucracy does not help and will not fix it. what would help and one reason you saw massive opposition to this proposal is that the board of supervisors has a majority. so the far left on the board has the majority. what we look around and see going on in san francisco right now -- >> thank you. can we have the next caller

please? >> caller: good morning supervisors. this is tess. i appreciate chair peskin's history lesson on this. i support kathy's point about the stonewall we meet as citizens when we go to various commissions where they're 100% appointed by the mayor and our remarks are completely disregarded, if not poo pooed. the suggestion about term limits, i would request more discussion regarding the election of offices. i believe a two year term limit does not help voters. there is a lot to learn about how it interacts with other parts of government. thank you very much for your support on this and get the rest of the people onboard. thank you. >> thank you. >> before we hear from the next

caller, vice chair mandelman, i am walking into swear in the new chinese hospital board of directors and will turn it over to you and will be back shortly. >> okay. [please stand by]

>> i want to make an amended comment on my motion because i i need to include the technical amendments. to my -- so i have two sets of amendments and one is just technical and similar language or the exact language that supervisor melgar put in place so those were the two sets of amendments i'll make for my motion and i'm happy to go on recess and wait for chair peskin to do that or do that now. >> happy to vote on the amendment and i believe was your plan to continue this until monday which i'm fine with doing.

so i would like to have an exchange with you about the amendment but the charter amendment not about your amendment so you moved the amendment to your charter amendment and let's vote on that. mr. clerk can you call the roll? >> yes, on the motion to amend the charter amendment. supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> under your consideration. the motion to amend passes without objection with chair peskin being absent. >> and i would like to make the notion continue to monday january 31. before i'll vote to support that

motion. >> i have a thought. another question i had was on the general responsibility of the power section of the city administrator which is on page 44 the last version i looked at but may still not be page 44, there's a list of administrative services that the city administrator would be responsible for including some they think are currently held by different departments to deal with things like hr and technology and is there thought the city administrator would do this for all across departments or what does that mean? >> so thank you so much for the question.

this is based on the budget and legislative analyst report to categorize the role of city administrator in three functions which is city wide internal services, public services and access management. the goal is to say within the category, these three we're expecting the city administrator to really oversee and play a role with the three main functions of city government. as they currently exist though, under the city administrator there's the office of contract administration. so it exists but now we're asking how can we evaluate that and allow her or allow i should say he or she like any city administrator to have the power to reorganize the city departments under the city administrator and including the

office of contract administration and how can you do it better and how to have better oversight contract throughout the city. but in terms of hr, when it comes to human resources, it's only limited for allowing the city administrator to remove the removal and performance evaluation and investigation of performance of city department but only for city department heads. that is where the city administrator can exercise authority for removal. >> and currently the office of contract administration plays a role in contract administration for different departments. would this change that? >> so that will be up for discussion. as you can see specifically,

we're asking the city administrator to come back for approval to propose how's the ordinance can be improved and restructured in the event the ballot measure is approved by the voters then it needs to be done by june 2023. so the city administrator a year ease time for not just the city investigator but the legislative and executive branch will have to work together and figure this out through ordinance. as everybody probably knows, through ordinance is for the majority to pass as a board however, the mayor can hold veto power if only under six or simple majority. >> thank you for that clarification. i understand this from reading

this but if i were to pass the city administrator would have a year to propose a small or large reorganization of city government which would be subject to approval by the board of supervisors and the mayor through her veto. and conceivably some may have to come back to the voters for future charter amendment or not but this would set in motion a top to bottom review of the functions of government and what the city administrators need under the city administrator. okay. >> i want to put a thought in though. i'm not saying the city administrator or even the mayor can do that it already at this moment. meaning, reorganize city government. what this ballot measure will end up doing though that because it's amended through an ordinance, that will allow the

conversation to be a public hearing subject to public hearing and subject to public investigate and conversation that allow public comment and allow people to give feedback and i think ultimately that is the idea that we have heard from participants time and time again about so many complaints about so many things and they all have very different feedback about how we can do better. this is an opportunity, when that ordinance -- you're asking me, could be very small or large in scale, but then that is subject for public hearing and conversations and optimally that is the goal and i hope we have the opportunity to have that conversation. >> okay. well, as i said, i'm going vote to forward to continue until monday. i would imagine that there would be the votes on the board of supervisors to vote for this and

send it to the ballot. i'm not going to be comfortable voting for is on monday and not because i think this is an irresponsible power grab but i i am -- and want to say more i think i share the motivations in look at the structure of city government and what would make more sense and think i agree where we are now in a lot of ways does not make sense and i think chair peskin gave us our history lesson and it is true, i mean, san francisco is the only county that i'm aware of in california that tries to make checks and balances work. and there's inherent tension in

having a county board of supervisors that in every other county in california actually select the executive and governs through an executive of its choice and our strong or stronger or weaker or whatever system there's a tension there. and i think it's possible for some of the challenges we have in delivering effective services are related to that tension. but i am concerned, nonetheless about further weakening the power of mayor relative to the board of the supervisors without a broader conversation. the power of the board of supervisors has grown over the last few years. our staff has doubled in five years going from 22 legislative aides to 44.

we have asserted ourselves in various ways and i mate be right to move the city more towards a county manage or city administrator form of governance but i don't think the problem right now is the executive is doing too much executing. i don't think that -- what i feel and i think what may be motivating some of the motivation behind this amendment or proposal is the feeling that that in some ways the mayor is both outgunned by the board of supervisors and doesn't have the apparatus necessarily to execute the executive functions across departments that you would want.

we have through our commission system and our separate departments we have an extraordinarily siloed city government that where as i was saying over and over again over the last several weeks in talking to different amendments, they don't seem to be pursuing common strategies and approaches. there's division between the mayor and board of supervisors in some cases about what the right direction is and seems like city government is paralyzed. i think that's reason to have conversation and i think a stronger city administrator that does actually execute this board of supervisors and we're also the only county in california that have 11 supervisors rather than seven or five i think.

we're a relatively large body, if we were trying to take on the running of the city. i think we may be due for a charter reform conversation but i think it goes beyond just shifting to more power of the board of supervisors and owning the door to a more power city administrator. those are some of my concerns and think it may well be the case that some of these commissions would benefit from having some board of supervisor appointments on there. i think historic preservation commission is one i think ought to. i supported adding board of supervisors to the m.t.a. board in the past so i can certainly see some particular boards and commissions where i think there is a need for board of

supervisor appointment but without broader reflection of what the executive needs to get the job done and how executive powers should be allocated between the mayor and the city administrator or whatever the structure is one that leaves me not ready to send to the voters though i'm grateful supervisor chan, you're trying to organize the conversation which is given my rambling comments in the last several moments, it's a difficult one. with that, supervisor chan. >> thank you. if i can quickly respond to that and some thoughts about i think the dynamics between the executive and the legislative branch i think is what you just talked about. i think you are absolutely right in a sense where hmm, is this tension that is natural because

the dynamics of the branch as a government and doesn't just exist. i would say there is -- we see that not functioning and not functioning well. and we see the accumulative impact. i'm going emphasize again and it has nothing to do with like the current administration, what i am seeing is a a cumulative impact since the charter amendment for the administrative reform and what we're trying to do here is to restore the checks and balances. i want to give an example and i think you were part of the conversation and it's the most recent prop i transfer tax conversation we wanted as a board of supervisors. we wanted to affirm the voters

will to allocate $4 million into affordable housing but for whatever reason the executive branch was proposing that and that is not just the super majority of the board of the supervisor but the will of the voter like now we see almost two months later i have yet to see any movement on the promises that were made by the executive branch to deliver. so it's really hard to think about that is the current structure functioning well and is there enough checks and balances to make sure we can move things forward. that's really the intent. the reason why i will time and time again as we continue this conversation is to not really think about this in a personal way or about the current

administration or the current board of supervisors because frankly and this puts us at the ideology and politics and different groups and clicks of politicians but if you were to reverse any of these, i would still be in the same position to figure out how to do checks and balances of all levels of government with our commission and administrative offices. i'm moving this over but i am open to explore what legislative tools are available to us to the branch and executive branch to figure out how to reform our city government for the better. i am open to that conversation. thank you so much.

>> chair peskin, we closed public comment and moved and voted on supervisor chan's amendments. we have each shared our thoughts for now on this and move to continue this item to monday. >> great, i shared my comments earlier and thank you for taking over temporarily. i listened to as much as i could and would like to ask the clerk to call the roll on continuing the item as amended to monday january 31. >> yes, on that motion, supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chairman delman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> thank you, mr. young and

colleagues, why don't we take a brief break to get down a little bit of food and reconvene at 1:00 p.m. does that work 30 minutes for lunch? okay, without objection we. >> good afternoon. we will reconvene our rules committee meeting continued fromearlier today , continued from monday and mister clerk, would you please read the next item? >> item 7 is charter amendment and the charter of the city of county and san francisco provides vacancies on board of supervisors, board of education and the governing body shall be held by a majority of those board members rather than extend the ban on initiating a recomposition from 6 to 12

months after the official office and prohibit the commission of three competitions within 18 months of a regular rescheduled election for the office sought to be recalled on june 7 2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001 and the meeting id is 2494 817 1812 thenpress pound and pound again. if you have done so press star agreed to speak . >> thank you mister young and thank you colleagues. this item simply is a measure that we've been discussing for some time to address the inequities and inefficiencies in our recall system .i want to thank the cosponsors of this charter amendment, supervisors walton, ronen, pastor preston

and melgar for their sponsorship. the measure is simple and designed first and foremost to eliminate whatwe just experienced . the extraordinary costs associated with one special recall election particularly when those recall elections are occurring within the same year as the regularly scheduled actions for those exact states. we started this conversation around last special election to recall the governor of the state of california, my former colleague gavin newsom was a recall effort that failed spectacularly not only in the stateof california but particularly here in san francisco . because san franciscans in and california voters and the polling shows this are fed up with these spurious efforts to undermine the general elections and i base that in part on a recent study conducted by the

nonpartisan public policy institute of california that found that while voters agree in the concept of being able to recall officials an overwhelming 70 percent of voters statewide support reform of the recall process with some 90 percent of democrats and 70 percent of independent voters agreeing recall are a waste of money and if you want thesource for that it's@ppisee.org . our current system is quite vulnerable to manipulation and abuse. and i think voters understand when the recall process is abused it's no longer about accountability . it's a recipe for distraction and undermining the will of the voters in electing that public official in the first place. if you're initiating a recall just six months after an

election, that's a second bite at the apple and in an insufficient amount of time to judge that elected officials performance. similarly forcing arecall of that general election for that seat isright around the corner is a recipe for unnecessary cost . and if you want to unseat an elected official, don't vote for that person in the general election . that's actually democracy. not this process of paying millions of dollars of money to collect signatures to purchase alone turnout electionwhich in turn triggers spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money to have special elections . exhausting the electorate to ensure low turnout elections is in and of itself a form of voter suppression and these things aren't cheap. $12 million for next month's special election alone as we all just had to vote for the

board of supervisors earlier this month. this is not about any single recall election nor is itabout prohibiting recalls altogether . in fact in the sake of total transparency and as a purely factual note, if this measure were in place today it would not have impacted thepending recall election of the district attorney. it also doesn't interfere with the ability for elected officials to be removed from office or having created a crime or other official misconduct . it actually happened back when mayor newsom removed then supervisor chiu. that would remain unchanged and what i propose. i have a couple amendments i circulated to you colleagues and are publicly available and will be part of the file for next week's hearing ifwe are to adopt them and continue this matter .

first in the event of a recall of an elected official, i have changed this to rather than having our body point, the mayor would appoint an interim officer or caretaker to carry out responsibilities of the vacated office until a successor is elected. the interim officer would not be able to run in the election to fill the vacancy. that's lines 1 through seven and it also clarifies at page 3, lines 12 through 13 that the prohibition on submission of a recall petition 18 months prior to the election is to ensure that a recall election may not be held within the 12 months prior to a regularly scheduled election for that seat. recall reform is possible popular. it's good policy and these amendments narrow the focus of this measure to inhibit any argument that is about anythin other than real recall reform. so with that colleagues , i'm

happy to share yourcomments or answer any questions and then we will open it up to public comment . and please note that my little button still doesn't work so if you want to speak either just jump in or raise your hand . all right. seeing neither of my colleague , and thank you supervisor chan for your cosponsorship why don't we take this to public comment? >> operations, check and see if there are any callers in the queue. if you have not done so press star three to be added to the queue.for those already on hold please wait till the system indicates you havebeen on you did and you may begin your comments. it appears we have 14 colors on the line with five in-line to speak . >> first speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is barry ratliff and i support the charter amendment that is under agenda item 7.

pushing back recall petitions by six months and prohibiting the recall elections within 12 months of the regularly scheduled election are common sense changes the city controller claims will result in savings. i strongly agree with the view the proposed change that asserts voter rights and distorts the balance of power creates more gridlock in government . thank you. >> thank you mister traveler and thank you for reminding me i neglected to call upon the controller in this or for that matter the last matter. and i will do so after public comments, goahead .

>> caller: june wooding with sanfrancisco land usecoalition . i support the amendment . this is a needed power transfer. the mayor's power should be reduced. too much power leads to poor oversight and corruption in city government. look around. you are assumed to be governed in one of two basic ways by a strong mayor system or weak mayor system. in the latter, nearly all power is with the city council. san francisco like los angeles is considered to be a strong mayor city without public school control. here, the mayor is top executive. our mayor can either approve or veto past legislation for the

legislative branch.and the san francisco board of supervisors. >> chair: go ahead.my apologies. >> the mayor here can also appoint members to the board. additionally because san francisco is a consolidated city county, the mayor serves at the county's agenda as well. thank you. >> thank you andsorry for that interruption . can we have the next caller? >> coalition for san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my

own behalf. in strong support. this is long overdue. this would also address the issue of a mayoral appointee subsequently running as incumbent. thank you. >> chair: thank you, next speaker. see a good day rules committee members, i am a resident of district 8. i appreciate the amendment to reform san francisco's recall process. supervisor peskin has proposed for the 2022 ballot cosponsored by supervisor walton, ronen, preston and chan. this would extend the wait time before recall could be initiated from six months to a year and stipulates a recall election may not be held within 12 months prior to a regularly scheduled election for the elected officials position and should a vacancy occur on the

board of supervisors or city college board of trustees, that those bodies would reappoint those seats. instead of the mayor. recallelections are costly and should not be undertaken indiscriminately . we should not be enabling well-funded special interest groups to hijack the voters choices at every turn. it's extremely important to preserve the will of the people as expressed by their vote. the mayor must not be able to impose his or her choice over and above the will of the people.please forward this ballot initiative to the board of supervisors for recommendation. thank you. >> chair: thank you, speaker please. >>. >> caller: good afternoon chair peskin. thank you so much for introducing this amendment. this much-needed amendment that would basically get rid of

cronyism and the dark money that we've been faced with more and more in the past few years. i think what most importantly the amendment that you just introduced today and amendment to your charter amendment that will force the mayor to appoint someone who's notgoing to be running for the office that is vacated . i think that's a very important improvement and much-needed. this is going to close the door on cronies that accidentally become our next elected officials. so i just am calling in full support. i hope that this measure passes . rules committee and more importantlythe full board . and would look forward to campaigning for it and vote for it. thank you so much.

>> next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon. i strongly oppose this charter amendment. this is one of the two most egregious proposals currently before the board or the rules committee as it elevates elected officials all about the people they are supposed to serve. elected officials should always be subject to voter oversight and the amendment test the power of the recallas an avenue to make politicalchange in extreme circumstances . it is rarely used, let's be honest here people . this is not something that's happening across the country. it's happening a lot right now because the pandemic is laid bare theincompetence of the board of ed and the incompetence of rda . that's why those are being recalled. this is a cynical political reaction to the current recall effort .

any voter on favor of putting this on the balance since the clear message that the official voter on the ballot is more concerned with gaining power and holding on to power than serving the people . it is worth noting that if this method were in place now doe recalls work successful boe would select the recall of the commissioners. seen from the perspective it's clear that the result would be a slap in the face to voters. the change to board of supervisors vacancymakes no sense in that the 10 remaining supervisors , none of whom were elected by thepeople in the vacancy district would select a new supervisor for that district . the mayor is elected citywide and for that to be the person who fills the vacancy. this does not protect the will of the people has several colors have commented. many officials arenot known to the people when elected . many of the board of ed members

were not known to the general public.there a down ballot vote and they were told who to votefor and they voted and now they're disappointed . >> i do want to say i guess the speaker did not hear the amendments that address most of the comments that she made. as those are not any longer in the legislation that'sbeing proposed. next speaker please . >> caller: this is reni karen. i'm enthusiastically in support of this legislation. recalls are an anti-democratic tool of the right and voter suppression. we need to do everything we can to curb them because recent recall efforts are just the beginning if we don't

while locally recalls only targeted progressives , i encourage the non-progressives on this board as well as the mayor to take note that they are themselves likely to liberal for these recalls you want the next but you might be in their sites somewhere down the line . this is our democracy itself at stake,not just who is winning or losing elections . >> thank you, next speaker. >>. >> caller: i support the recall charter amendment as amended. what could be more ridiculous than having four elections this year for the district attorney's and the arguments about who should pay for the school board, these are a waste of time, the current ones are a

waste of time. there are reasons to have a recall especially when there's been some kind of criminal act or other betrayal of office. but these amendments are in the right direction and it might be there are additional amendments that would be useful on recall but i'm glad to see this one moving forward. >> can we have thenext caller please ? >> caller: my name is julian and i'm here to speak in support of recall reform. part of the new school board recalled by the campaign and i'm here to the inequities builtinto the recall system and the harm it's doing to our children . recalls are tools of billionaires and avoter suppression tool . in our elections recalls have no contributions. this means they are only possible to those who give

money. in both the school board and be a recalls it was focused on smalldonations from san francisco voters that will get on the ballot until they started getting big donations . the childhood billionaire has exhibited 400,000 to a special recall election voters who face barriers to vote are unlikely to vote in. now we see individuals like pt and the spending to elect future supervisors who determine theirfuture in san francisco. they know a deal when they see one . the fact that a mayor will be able to appoint school board members concentrates too much power in the hands of one person and create expensive elections. on the flip side almost 2 million spent by those who are recalling our school boards would waste a kids budget for two years. but when $12 million the city is spending we need for masks, literacy specialists, computer

teachersand more. the amount of money and time on this recall is taking away from focusing on our students need in the middle of a global pandemic as long as they have no limits there will be wealthy corporations like writing blank checks as a way of undermining the electorate in san francisco . this harms our childrenand i cannot support thisamendment . thank you, chair peskin you are muted at the moment . >> chair: next speaker please . >> caller: good afternoon supervisors, catherine howard. i'm not opposed to recalls in general. the public should be able to recall their elected representatives but i do support this charter amendment. i hope voters will understand modifying the recall process is not the same as taking a position on the currentschool board recall . whatever your feelings about the current school board, the recall is costing the city a great deal of money for a special election that will have

only a short-term impact that is out of scale with the time and money beingspent . furthermore, i am concerned that the recalls depend onlarge sums of money to their campaigns . this tree leaves the process open to undue influence from the very sectors of our economy that are already controlling so much of the public process through over-the-top campaign contributions and the purchase of media coverage. please support this charter amendment. >> thank you. can we have the next caller please?>> caller: i strongly support this charter amendment and thank supervisor peskin and the other five supervisors who have cosponsored it. my hope is that the motion to

amend the language in the charter amendment will be approved today and that today you also finalize placing this on the june 7 ballot by sending a strong recommendation to the full board of supervisors to accept the amendments being made today and not have to reschedule this for an additional hearing before the rules committee. thank you. >> thank you mister shaw and the rules are that when we make any amendments of any kind to any proposed charter amendments they are subject to another round of public comments soif those amendmentsare adopted it

has to be continued to another meeting of this rules committee . next speaker please . >> caller: hi, i am erica flagg from district 4 and the group d forward. we certainly support this reasonable adjustment to the recall process. and for all the reasons that have been sent prior. and i also want to take the amendment that we have a new recall industrial complex and that somebody needs to look into how much money is being made in producing these extra elections from the outside. please supportthis. we will work hard to help it pass in the juneelection . thankyou very much . >> next speaker please .

>> caller: this is stephen voss with guerrilla sf. where a organization advocating for better government and more growth in san francisco. we strongly oppose this charter amendment to limit the voice of the voters. it's the mark of pirates everywherethat when you are in charge you change the rules to hold on to your power and that's what's happening here . votersdeserve the right to hold their elected officials accountable and that includes via recall elections . so i'm just registering my opposition to this and i hope it doesn't make it to the ballot because it would send a terrible signal to the rest of the united states even

progressive san francisco tries to an act voter suppression and squash the voices of its citizens. thank you. >> next speaker. >> caller: thank you, i propose for many reasons that guerrilla sf just stated. voters should be able to have a say.they should be able to course correct ifsomething isn't working. the da for example, leaving the city down a dark path that will cost democrats on a national level in the midterms . i'm not sure what city they're living in that they think it's working well. there needs to be checks and balances and the bos doesnot need more power . >> next caller please.

>> good. >> caller: goodafternoon supervisors, this is teresa and i am stating my name . i am not ashamed of what i'm about to say which is i am in huge support of this charter amendment and i'm so glad that we are finally doing this. democracy is such a precious thing . i do hope that this passes with a strong recommendation. i'm going forward and i look forward to the nexthearing on this thank you very much for bringing this forward . >> next speaker. >> speaker, if you are online you can proceed with your comments . >> caller: can you hear me now? >> please proceed. >> caller:

>> caller: i appreciate the thoughts related to government accountability and structure. on this measure i opposed this proposal as it now reads. i will look carefully at the amendment. i believe that the core function of the mayor is to fill vacancies and one of the things that voters should think about in electing a mayor is that persons ability to fill vacancies where they may occur as well as appointments representing a broad range of san francisco. so i would keep thatfunction intact . i think frankly that recalls are fine and you know, kind of like what bill clinton said aboutabortion. it should be safe , legal and rare. so recalls i think should be

safe, legal and rare and just because we had a few recently doesn't mean that the system is broken . i'msorry. that wasn't 2 minutes . >> my apologies, i may have forgottento reset my clock . >> caller: give meanother 45 seconds and will call it even . i'll be quick. the current system works okay for a four-year term. the recall window is three years otherwise in elected officer can be effectively insulated from accountability unless they are suspended pursuant to other charter provisions. the school board members who are the subject of their recall could have just resigned and

avoided the recall election and there still would be a special election to fill the assembly state, no one is proposing that the assembly be able to fill a vacancy when one of its members disappears. nor should the governor appoint to fill vacancies of the assembly so if we have special actions to fill an assembly seat we can have special elections when it's a sufficient number signed a petition for a recall . itherefore oppose this current proposal . >> my apologies for forgetting to reset the clock on thatone occasion . we have one additional color, the nextcaller is our last color online . >> caller: bruce wolf, thank you supervisor peskin and supervisors. i wholeheartedly support. i understand the previous speakersconcept for having special elections they cost a lot of money . and i don't think that's a good

use to keep having more and more elections and it confuses and affects election turnout. i urge your support. >> are there any other speakers forthis item . >> we have one person who just jumped in . >> last speaker. >> caller: good afternoon supervisors. i had called earlier and was unfortunately cut off. i wanted to point out that with all of these rationales around ... >> i believe we've heard from this individual and they had their 2 minutes .

>> chair: i believe so. they may have been cut off beyond the 2 minutes and public comment hasalready concluded . >> any other speakers for this item that have previously not spoken ? that was the last public comments are. i'm doing one last check again. we have one moredistrict jumping inagain . >> all right . can you hear me? >> caller: my name is drew mintz. i'm here to stay i do not support this amendment. if this charter amendment was really there to fix the recall process and to curb the power of onespecific branch , then you would focus on the

contribution limits and changing something with that. as it stands right now with the six months in office it's already done a lot of damage. by changing it to one year you're doubling the damage to thepublic . to be honest it is incredibly hard for a recall to bestarted . it isvery rare for it to begin . this compounded with the previous charter amendment that was discussed is a large power grab by the board of supervisors and that undercuts the mayor who is supposed to be a check against elected officials. i'd strongly opposethis charter amendment . >> any other remaining speakers for this item? >> we are doing doing another

lastcheck . that completes public comment onthis item . and i will say the notion of, and we did thorough investigation into various aspects of the recall reform and getting to this moment. the notion of actually limiting contributions in arecall is something that we explored . right now there is no limit and unfortunately cause of the citizens united case, it is the opinion of our city attorney based on case law that we cannot limit contributions in recall elections. and as a result, that is not in the charter amendment that is before this committee that i would greatly like to do so and it would create a fair and level playing field but if you really want to talk about inequities and unfairness, the

packing of our supreme court would be example a. so or exhibit a. with that colleague , i will close public comment and asked that we vote on the amendments. supervisor mandelman. >> i've got some questions. >> chair: yes sir. >> i have general questions but more specificquestions raised by the amendment to the amendment . so in terms of its practical application to thisyear , there will be an election in february that includes the recall of three members of the school board the mayor will presumably if those folks are recall , the mayor will make appointments to the school board to fill those

seats. what with the passage of this charter amendment in june mean for the people who were appointed sometime after february but were planningon running in december ? >> chair: it is my belief but i will defer to counsel insofar as first intime, first in right they would be able to do so i believe but i will defer to counsel for a response for that . >> deputy city attorney and pearson. that's a great question and one we are lookingat . like you i just received these amendments this morning so i'm still taking them in . we are going to be prepared to answer that question but i don't have ananswer for you today . >> thank you and then in june there will be an election on which the recall of the

district attorney will appear for a balance on which the district attorney 's recall, the mayor will make an appointment to the office of district attorney . and at the same time, the authors intention that the person who is appointed by the mayor or district attorney would not be able to run in november ? >> i will deferthat to counsel and i think counsel would give you the same answer . if we adopt these we can get those answers come monday. >> i will give you the same answer and we will be prepared to answer that question by monday. >> then i have a couple more basic questions which is sort of why these offices like i actually believe that at a

broader level if there's a vacancy on the board of supervisors, recall or otherwise, anyone the other mayor appoints shouldn't be able to run. in the event of an office that there's a vacancy in the mayor's office, the board of supervisors and city and county of san francisco that that person should not be able to run and those would both be positive changes. i think there have been efforts to do things in that regard in thepast . we're only looking at the universe of recall but the reason i think it makes sense for the mayor and board of supervisors is contrary to supervisor ronen's statement that democracy works, people, democracy worksif people know

what they're voting on .our offices people know who they're voting on, they know their mayor. part of the problem with schoo board and college board , professor and some of these other offices ispeople don't have any idea . very few people know who they are voting for . it appears to me that this is a shift of power away from the mayor and i'm curious why that's an important thing todo . >> chair: supervisor mandelman i would like to think when everybody put you on the college board they knew who they were voting for but that aside ... >> only the voters in district 8. >> chair: that aside, you answer the question which is that this is a piece of legislation which is narrowly focused on recall reform at a

period in time when from the level of governor on down, recalls and maybe that recall is right but this is a momentary and rare instance that is playing out in the state and across the nation. that too shall pass but it is also one of those moments that gets us to focus on a system that has rarely been used and could be optimized. and to that end amendments and i think you're speaking to the amendments. only how individuals are replaced if there is a successful recall. but i agree with you that there should be a conversation, broader conversation about those powers. and not to make any suggestions to supervisor chan relative to the last item but the last time

that there was really wholesale amendments to the charter, not around specific issueslike this . there was the convening of a group of, really quite vast array of interests in looking at fundamental changes in the charter one by one. that happened in 94 and 95 and i think that notion falls under this. it's also been the intention of some other charter amendments including and i believe 2016 proposition d let's select our elected officials which was narrowly defeated. i think one side spent $2 million defeating and the other side spent i think $19,000 supporting it. and it lost i think five

points. but really i'm trying to keep its focus in the realm of recall. >> chair: whathappens if the mayor is recalled ?>> are saying should not be a caretaker as well. that is a very good suggestion and insofar as we get one more bite at this apple, i think that's a good suggestion which is that be subject to the same. again, i was going to say to the speaker earlier who was supporting this and saying the board should havemore appointmentpower . i was like , wait a minutehere . there is a reciprocal power balance set forth in the charter and you just put your finger on. which is in the case of a

vacancy, and the executive branch is the legislative branch points. and so that balance of power does exist relative to those two branches. but i think what's good for the goose is good for the gander at madame deputy, city attorney if you and deputy city attorney shannon could prepare that reciprocal amendment in the intervening five days that would be much appreciated and i would like to entertain that on monday. >> chair: mister chair. >>. >> chair: thank you, i hope to garner your support for this along the way and with that the amendments are before us and mister clark to take the role onthe amendments . >> on the motion to adopt the

amendments, supervisor chan. [roll call vote] the motion passeswithout objection .>> chair: and the motion to continuethe item to monday, january 31 . >> on the motion to continue the matter as amended until january 31, the proviso chan . [roll call vote] the motion passes. >> chair: couldyou please call the next item ? >> next is eight, charter amendment to adopt a declaration of policy urging

the retirement board to divest from fossil fuels and amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to require one of the members of the retirement board is appointed by the mayor shot instead by appointed by the board of supervisors and require the board of supervisors point in number to the experienced with the management of investment portfolio based on environmental, social and governance factors at election to be held june 7, 2022. members who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 2494817 1812 . then press pound and pound again. if you haven't doneso please dialá3 to speak . >> chair: thank you mister young,colleagues . i think we all share frustration as legislators who have worked continuously to push our retirement board to

divest from the truly life-threateningfossil fuel portfolio that they have thus far . refused to divest from and this is what has gotten me to the point of introducing a charter amendment. and i know and you know under the california state constitution and other provisions of law that we cannot nor the mayor for that matter interfere in the pensio systems investment decisions . but the fact is the retirement board worth some 30 billion dollars has divested from tobacco and fromfirearms . and every year the retirement

board reiterates its commitment to remain divested from these controversial industries but despite a decade's worth of unanimously passed resolutions by this and previous boards on three separate occasions the retirement board ... from fossil fuels. we know this to be true that divestment and the divestment movement is working. and dominance, portfolios and pension funds around the planet have committed to just shy of 40 trillion in abstinence from coal coal, gas and oil investments . those institutions include universities ranging from the university of california. this entire system, uc michigan, harvard, cambridge. the first act of the new mayor

of boston was to sign legislation committing boston to fall divestment.the movement has grown so large it is testing theability for some companies to raise capital which is why we should be pushing this . early divestitures have been awarded. the market has gone up 16 percent over the last five years. oil and gas has fallen at a rate of three percent per year. these frankly are bad investments from the fiduciary perspective and increasing, increasinglythat's because they're being perceived as the real threat that they are. a real threat to our climate and human existence . locally and i think we know this our board is remarkably staff driven and while our push has resulted in additional staff analysis it has not resulted in any meaningful divestment .

the retirement board in my opinion is in dire need of experts who are less interested in rubberstamping 's recommendations. so the governance change that thisbalance would make i believe would further that goal. having said that , i had productive conversations with the mayor's office so i think we are also interested in achieving divestment and figuring out other ways to perhaps make that happen. but i want to continue this discussion. i think this is a good place to have it. i want to thank my early cosponsors in this effort, supervisors preston, melgar and chan as well as the diverse group of advocates including pension fund members and retirees . you climate action leaders, indigenous leaders, union

leaders who are continuing to push or moreresponsibility . more responsible investment policies. so i do intend to continue this item for one week to allow time for some moving pieces to fall into place but if there is no comment fromcommittee members , i would like to open this up to public comment. seeing no actual hands, mister young, why don't we open this up for public comment ? >> we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue . if you have not done so press star 3 to be added to the queue.please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. we currently have 17 listeners and 2 callers inline to speak . >> chair: first callerplease . >> caller: this is patrick again. as you know, charter section 1

, 100 a stipulates there should be 3 to 7 members of the retirement board are elected from the ranks of current employees and retirees. as of june 2016, 86.7 percent of city employees and retirees were in that so-called miscellaneous categories. doctors, nurses, secretary, food service or certified nursing assistants and such. only 13 percent were public safety employees and retirees. police, fire and sheriff's department. i submitted testimony to you that i think while this charter

amendment is being put before voters that you consider requiring the city of san francisco joins the 20 other counties under sacres's bylaws require those 20 jurisdictions to limit the elected seats to one for public safety, reserve another one for miscellaneous members. as it is, ever since 2000 six the three elected members have all been monopolized public safety staff.

that's obviously totally unfair and this in franchises the 96 percent of employees. >> thank youmister shaw. i understand what you are expressing . i don't know that this is the place for retirement board reform. i'm seeking through this one simple thing which is fossil fuel divestment but i do understand what you're saying and i realized that relative to the retirees and employees representation that you have a valid point. next speaker please? >> caller: supervisor, i would certainly support supervisor

shaw's point about the representation of the board. i understand that's not the subject of your ordinance and amendment but i think that having the board of supervisors in a seat that is currently filled by a mayor's appointee would put reform in that direction. >> thank you, next speaker. >> caller: david philpell again. i supportthe amendment and i like where this is going . i have a concern that combining a charter amendment with a declaration of policy is confusing. i think there are two separate concepts. i don't understand how the city attorney can sign off as to the form. they are in fact two separate

instruments. in this case i think the language that is the declaration of policy portion on page 1 of the 2 and a half lines there would be pretty easily put into a section in 12.100 like in e for example. to just enshrine that policy statement in the charter rather than have it standalone or declaration of policy or consider that outside the charter language . i think if we want to propose that aspolicy let's just put that policy in the charter . i also take the previous speaker patrick shaw's point that that too could be addressed but in a different measure than in the future dealing with the time board mechanics. but i think this is very much about fossil fuel divestment and i agree and supportthe

motion in the way that i expressed . >> say for the record the city attorney has signed on to this form . next speaker please. >> that completes our colors in line to speak. >> chair: public comment is closed. and hopefully whether it's through a declaration of policy or changes to appointing authorities, the retirement board and staff will divest their approximately half billion dollars of fossil fuel investments that are as former city employee jack flick has shown us with very sophisticated analysis or money losers and it is really a crying shame that they have divested from one 10th of one percent of that and i mean, this is a city you would think

would be at the forefront of that movement. we are at the tail end of that movement. we can do better, we mustdo better than trying to figure out a way to do that . for thetime being i make a motion to continue this until our meeting of january 31 . and how that motion mister young a rollcall please. [roll call vote] the motion passes without objection. >> last charter amendment for the day please. >> item 9 is a charter amendment of the city and county of san francisco. streamlined review of eligible affordable housing projects by limiting discretionary view by city boards and commissions and

providing for ministerial review in lieu of schools to city boards commissioned and business and tax information code, affirming the planning department determination under the california environmental quality act and making claims of the planning code. and a motion to be held on june 7, 2022, members of the public who wishto provide public comment should call 415-655-0001 . meeting id is 2494 817 1812. then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial á3 to speak. >> chair: this is from supervisor safai, the board is yours. >> i had to rush down the hall. i had to log on to one meeting.

it's very anxiety provoking having multiple things going o , making amendments to charter amendments and nowcoming back to this one . but we've got it, thank you. >> thank you colleagues, supervisor chan. supervisor mandelman and all the folksthat have been involved in this conversation . just want to set a bit of context onthis . supervisor peskin and i think the minute i got on the board of supervisors darted a conversation about affordable housing . starteda conversation about inclusionary housing and updating back . how we: that process and were able to push the envelope in a way that hadnot been done before . ben also worked with supervisor

katie tang. took a second round and she put a couple years into the school sf program and we got that done i'm proud to say. one of the first home sf projects is actually under construction in my district. 200 units of housing, all unio built . in the context of that, there have been a lot of other projects and a lot of other buildings and proposals that have not necessarily been able to go through the process in a timely manner and where we are today when you talk to people in the construction industry, when you look at our economy and uncertainty, when you look at supply chain issues and the cost of materials and how they increase and how the cost of instruction has increased when youtalk to the planning department , you will see that we are beginning to slow down. so there were a number of

different renditions of this proposal here today but what we did was we took a step back and said let's start in the industry that's most impacted witches the building and construction trade. we had about a year's worth of conversation with them about this and looking at the industry and looking at how many people are out of work and looking at ways in which we can then jumpstart the economy of construction. this proposal in front of us today is designed to be an economic generator. it is also designed to help us achieve in many ways what we have not been able to achieve and as much as people believe that san francisco is doing its fair share we're stillfalling short and a lot of different categories . about the amount of housing we are building and the speed with which that housing isbeing built . so i introduced this

conversation to have a real conversation with housing. i've spoken to all of you. i've spoken to many other members of theboard . we've had a lot of conversation with stakeholders and what you see in front of you todayis designed to increase affordable housing in the city . on home sf projects, on inclusionary projects and i'll talk about the third category which we talked about affordable housing and we get it its own definition. there are a couple of different things we purposely done here that are intentional. one of which is we streamlined the review process. we know many of these projects and many projects like these thatwould be proposed have gone through significant environmental review . we know that those projects are

ultimately environmentally true and we know that at times there have been people that come to slow the process down. not necessarily based on environmental review on other instances and intention the slow project down. and usually it's about increased affordability and not very often it's a conversation revolving around increased laborprotection . so what you have in front of you today is an attempt to streamlined reviewprocess . in projects that are 25 units or more that are larger in nature but also taking into consideration things san francisco caresabout. we care about historic preservation in the city . we care about tenants and neighborhood character protection. this charter amendment does not allow for the displacement of any tenants . it does not allow for the

reduction of units.it does not allow for destruction or demolition of any historic properties. category 1 and 2 registered national historic landmarks are not allowed to be touched. what this ultimately boils down to is talking about vacant lot . and the lots, sometimes parking lots and undeveloped lots or sites that have commercial property that don't have units. that don't have historic value andwhen you look at those , there's not a dramatic amount but there's enough of those in the city infrastructure or in the land that we can develop a significant number of units and have an impact on our housing goals are affordable housing goals and also how to regenerate some economic

san francisco is by far the most difficult and time-consuming place in the world to develop. so that does say something about problems we have in our

city and we can debate about thatand i know we have over the years as well . but i wanted to emphasize that were going to be coming in with an amendment and i'm happy to answer questions but i'm also happy chair to introduce those amendments and talk them through it but i'm happy to open it up to any questions. >> go ahead. >> that's it. >> chair: i have not seen those amendments and i normally get the agenda before i introduce them, that's the rule of the road but insofar as these are charter amendments , you'll have the opportunity to look at them between now and monday. i am happy to adopt them sight unseen. having said that, having lived through 2015 and 2016 where i had to go to the ballot to undo some stuff that should never

have been in the charter so that we could have the precise conversation that you invoked earlier about updating our inclusionary standards. it is my belief and you can try to convince me otherwise that this is the stuff of ordinance. that should remain dynamic, fluid, as labor circumstances change. as affordability standards change. and that this has no place in the constitution that is our charter. as and lee made that mistake in 2012, we had to fix it in 2016 which has led to that improvements in the realm of ordinances. idon't think this belongs in our charter . i'mhappy to have you convince me otherwise . and i doubt this thing sees the light of day. >> i should have started with

that and this is what we got from the city attorney but we're doing things to streamlined in terms of our local authority as a body either at the planning commission. anything that is streamlined that disproving the appeal of that process has to bedone through the charter and it can be done shortly . >> not to sound adverse supervisor, my friend from district 11 but there's all these narratives out there about was grabbing power from who . and to me this is a narrative that no one spoken to witches this government grabbing power from everyday citizens and their ability to petition thei government . >> thank you for that point.

i'mnot part of any narrative, i wasn't part of your last conversation . >> was what was but i'm glad you had an equal fund at the budget committee. >> chair: having said that why don't we open it up to public comment? i see you waving your hand supervisormandelman . >> thank you chairpeskin . >> i want to let you know i'll be right back.>> just click thatbutton, run down the hallway . i'm not sure if raising questions to the sponsor makes sense at this point mister vice chairman but i respect the need

for a quorum. >> chair: that'sfine. we're all here . for the charter itwould be better with him around . why don't we go to the public on thischarter proposal ? mister young. >> operations, checking see if we have colors. if you have not done so press star 3 tobe added to the queue . for those on hold wait until the system indicates you have been an muted. it looks like we have 30 people on the line with 12 inline to speak . first speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon. this is tracy chris burke and i'm calling on behalf of the alliance we urge you to oppose

the proposed charter amendment for the june 7 2022 ballot. the reality is that firefighters, teachers, nonprofit workers, middle-class people in general do 140 percent of the area median income which to be clear is $130,000 a year for a single person. a one-bedroom apartment at 140 percent of ami is $3729 per month in rent . this charter basically will approve market rate housing disguised asaffordable housing . and we really have had quite enough of that in the city so i ask you to object to this charter amendment and hold out for the kind of affordable housingthat we actually need in san francisco .

>> thank you, canwe have the next caller please ? >> caller: good afternoon supervisors, chair peskin. land use coalition, i apologize if you hear the groundnoise but i'm calling from the grocery store . the same thoughts that the previous caller addressed, 140 percent of the ami is nowhere near the neighborhoods that supervisor safai represents. the median household hovers around 80 percent. the folks from these neighborhoods and districts can even be competing with people that are at 140 percent of ami. so what are we doing here? as the planning departments nexus study shows for every 100

units of market rate that we build in the city of san francisco, we need 37 the mri units to have loans on people that will be supporting the folks that by these units. this just doesn't do anything to address our affordability crisis and the rate of affordable housing production that we are sorely missing in the city of san francisco. and when we're talking about material approval, we already have that for projects that over 50percent or more affordable housing . this measure is superfluous if i may say so . so that's why i urge you to reject this and draft legislation and amendments to actually expedite the production of affordable housing 50 percent or more for

the people who need them. not somebody who's making $135,000 a year. that person can definitely affordto rent in the city of san francisco and chair peskin , this should not be ... >> can we have the nextcaller please ? >> caller: good afternoon supervisors. my name is zach weisenburger and i'm a young committee to the developer and also a member of the planning coalition . vision san francisco that historic powers marginalized communities, low income seniors todetermine our futures. we strongly urge you to vote against this charter amendment that is an attack on these committees . it'spresented as an affordable housing streamlined but what it does is streamlined market rate

on affordable housing . this legislation affects firefighters, nonprofit workers who don't make near 140 percent ami which as the previous caller mentioned is $186,000 a year for a family of four. who is this house supposed to beaffordable to ? we urge you to reject this amendment because it silences communities and developers and hands developersbottom lines while adding nothing of value for sf . >> can we have the next caller please?>> it afternoon supervisors. my name is david hyman and i'm on the board of directors for the lgbtq cultural district. we have an interest in preserving affordable housing that lets the people who wish to work in the business is actually live here.it appears the proposed charter amendment

will damage that by changing affordability definitions in subtle and opaque way. it appears to grant developers of high cost housing projects a very special benefits that ought to go only to the truly affordable ones and in practice it would silence the very communitiesthat need that housing denyingthem the ability to express their concerns on key aspects of the project developers should have a legitimate choice . include affordable housing . if you let developers claim their market rateyou give them carte blanche to ignore the needs of the city and its people . i urge you to oppose the proposed charter amendment for the ballot. >> this is patrick shaw again. like all of the previous speakers i urge you to on monday reject this charter amendment . supervisor peskin is right.

this belongs in anordinance, not enshrined in charter . let me just say that this is a trojan horse to enshrine prevailing wagesfor the building and construction trade unions . i have documents from kate hartley at the mayor's office of housing and community development who was contacted by barry ms. l at the building trade council wanting to guarantee that the 2019 affordable housing bond would prove provide prevailing wages. mister hartley told mister mundelein in writing and i can provide those documents to you that mohcd has supported providing wages to the building

trades construction industries. this is totally ridiculous. it is not streamlining affordable housing and it would strip the planning commission board of appeals to historic preservation committee and the commission of who would face having ministerial review completely eliminated. do not entertain placing this on the june or any other balance as thecharter measure . thank you. >> can we have the next speaker please? >> today, i'm anastasia monopolist, a member of the

tenants union and we are a member organization of the race and equity and planning coalition.about measure entitled streamlining review of affordable housing is masquerading as an affordable housing measure when in reality is is an above area median income housing measure. this charter amendment as proposed is a direct attack on race and equity and all planning coalition's division that puts the expertise of our communities at the forefront to solve issues of displacement, affordability and inequality placing developers desires for profit over the needs of the people. as amended it raises the upper range of the a.m. i for so-called affordable housing above and beyond what firefighters, teachers and city workers can afford to pay for housing and is past it would assure the san francisco is only for the very wealthy and no longer a city for working people, seniors andothers on fixed income . if this ballot measure includes

the proposed streamlining provisions , we wouldn't have any say over how our communities would develop. we would no longer be able to hold developers accountable to give us more affordable housing, provide jobs that serve our community and provide open spacethat we can actually use . our voices would be silenced and developers could build whatever they want.please replace it with a substitute charter amendment that addresses the most radical housing needed in san francisco. give us a charter amendment that will deliver an adequate supply of housing for extremely low, low and moderate income people who will actively be engaged in creating it . >> can we have the next caller please?

>> caller: this is neonatal speaking on behalf of the housing action coalition. excited to be in support of the charter amendment. anytime new housing can be approved that's a big win in ensuring these projects and laboris another big one . for those reasons we wholeheartedlyencouraged supervisors support this measure . >> can we happen next caller please west and mark. >> caller: my name is merle kelly and i live in district 9. affordable housing is a very broad term. affordable for whom? the people who have plenty of money are doing quite well

wherethey are in the city , like where they work. putting something on the ballot that shuts out able to support themselves and their family on low income jobs do not have enough options. please do not put low-paid workers in jeopardy by making this about issue. by the way, these low-paid workers have jobs that would be absolutely depend on. they are theworkers who take care of the elderly and disabled . they are workers, the list goes on and on. they do childcarewhich is low-paying . please do notvote for this . >> can we have thenext caller please ? >> caller: my name is fernando

markey and i am codirectorof the community housing organization . i want to raise a number of questions around this particular ballot measure. particularly as itrelates to the streamlining of production of affordable housing . affordable housing is already title by rack. the coalition is proud of what we've done for the mayor and what you have done to streamlineaffordable housing. this charter amendment is not expediting development . right now all new development 50 percent is affordable is already expedited. the question is what does the public , what do low income and moderate income tenants, service workers, construction workers get in exchange for this expanded set of benefits for developers? these kinds of things are really the kinds of things that ought to be developed developed collaboratively with advocates

and it's the kind of thing supervisor safai talked about old sf. it was a process that ended up with a good policy based on the back-and-forth of collaborative development and negotiations working on affordable housing and helping to protect labor rights advocates . we hope that this charter amendment really goes to that kind of process and helping committee organizations as opposed to what is before you today. thank you for your thoughtful consideration. >> next caller please. >> caller: eileen bogan, the federal legislative liaison for san francisco neighborhoods. i am speaking on my own behalf.

opposing this charter amendment and initiative ordinance regarding quote unquote streamlining. overthe past five years san francisco has seen a surge of state legislation that claims the school is to quote unquote dream line housing . including sb 35 among many other bills . many of these bills have been authored by state legislators from san francisco.these numerous state bills ordering that a local initiative is also being proposed to streamline it's even more bewildering that this is being proposed as a charter amendment .i urge the committee to table this item. thank you. >> can we happennext caller please ? speed. >> caller: hi there rules committee, bob here again. this time i am calling in association with my friend and fellow groups as part of san francisco unity and i'm calling as part of the charter

amendment, thank you so much to the mayor and supervisor for accomplishing this forward. let's be clear, this proposal would offer streamlining to homebuilders who would fulfill the requirements as required by law currently. who have those to produce subsidized affordable housing. so we're not just saying this is only market rates, is a hybrid proposal that includes proposals for housing projects like the one that you all rejected. and it would make it easier to build these projects and you're going to need to build a lot of them over the next 10 years. what what is happening with all the proposals with the city from the home sf project on the west side to even those 100 percent below market rate projects like the ones in irving and the 730. that still meet entrenched neighborhood resistance. do you want that kind of money polarizing fight to happen on a

case-by-case basis where you will be held accountable to build build 82,000 homes over the next eight years as required by the state? senator weiner said it best. you have controls to decide how this housing gets built not whether it should be done and the labor protections are just a bonus on top that you supervisors are championing labor. these support this proposal and passthis proposal. wecan't wait anymore.the last 50 years have shown us that we've destroyed san francisco's housing market . thank you . >> next caller please? >> caller: can you hear me? >> we can, please proceed. >> in contrast to the nimby who got on the mic right now my name is nancy hernandez and i am from the nine and i work in the 11. i was a high school teacher before the shutdown and i am now managing a covid response

center. there are 10 people in front of me packaging boxesand 45 people standing in front of us outside in line to pick up food . we have been providing this service for 95 weeks now in district 11 with zero help from our supervisor who is currently working on trying to make it easier to buildmore condos . our neighborhood is oversaturated with luxury housing. there are vacancies at the luxury condos across the stree . 4801 mission street is a bunch of condos sitting empty. it 65 motion is also asix-story building that is being put up right now with 145 lecture units .there is already an oversaturation of unacceptable housing right here that is sittingopen. but we are lacking is real affordable housing . we have 5000 clients who have requested help. most of them asking for help

with affordable housing. out of the majority ofthose clients who come in here tofill out the application , they do not qualify because they don't make enough money to get into the system . we have sent here in a pandemic feeding client after client and risking our own personal health. and only two of those clients out of the 80 who have filled out the application have been given a place to live. san francisco has been building units but those buildings, those units are not accessible to the community that needs them and this charter amendment would actually hinder the process of us being able to house people. by prioritizing these luxury units that we don't need in this neighborhood so i am staunchly against this initiative and any other further attempts to dissuade people from what needs tobe done right now because this district has only created more . >> can we happen next caller please?

>> caller: good afternoon supervisors, joseph smith with district rising and race in equity and planning coalition. the race in equity andplanning coalition urges you to vote against this proposed charter amendment . direct coalition envisions new political economic and social systems that prioritize the dignity, health, stability and aspirations of our communities. and waste the needs of people over developers desire for profit. this proposed charter amendment is a direct attack on this vision. if this measure passes we will no longer be able to hold profit driven developers accountable accountable to more affordable housing providing jobs for our community, making space for businesses thatserve our communities and providing six accessible open space that we can use . this charter amendment weeks of

distrust ofcommunities and shifts all power to profit driven developers to those 100 percent marketrate housing . by redefining affordable two 140 percent of the area median income , this measure leads the public because the pricesfor 140 percent of the area median income are above market rates . we urge you to reject this charter amendment because instead of providing affordable housing silences communities, transfers power to developers andpads developers bottom line while providing nothing of value for san francisco . >> thank you. can we have the nextcaller please ? >> caller: my name is ronald maldonado, pastpresident of district 11 . i was low income on modesto and i'm calling for this charter amendment on review for affordable housing.as an sf

resident of the past five years watching black and hispanic 's low income homes go away people like me advocating for affordable housing before collecting anything else. crazy, right? the fact that it requires low income housing and allow streamlined opportunities to underwrite housing for lgbt people. i've seen people in the park go to richmond, oakland, low-wage workers go out of sf to commute outside of sf. why can't we have these people in sf and not haveto commute ? does the communitynot have the ability to practice what you preach ? the actions of people like me staying inside sf are exquisite from places like alamo square for the city of richmond or north beach further displacing people where i'm trying tostay

right now in oakland. thank you for your time , hopefully you have a good year . but anyways, thank you. >> can we have the next caller please?>> that afternoon supervisors, i'm a community activist. what we want to do is destroyed san francisco's housing market because we want housing in san francisco to serve san francisco residents. the medianincome according to the center bureau is under $69,000. for an individual .that household income is under 113,000 so even if this legislation was proposed to redistrict to 120 percent of ami it would still be 30,000 over the median income.

the problem, part of the problem here is that the area median income is based on a formula including marion, san francisco and san mateo county and two of those counties are much more wealthy than we are. you need to separate the building of affordable housing from developers who are funded by international finance that has to get 20, 30, etc. plus percentage profit on their construction. we need to build affordable housing by affordable housing developers to serve current and future sf residents who are below the median income for the teachers who are shopkeepers, who work as at the fire department, who are nurses and it is just ridiculous. this whole thing is a wolf in sheep's clothing. so of course, what sacramento

does is it says san francisco must produce housing but san francisco like any other entity doesn't just build housing until we get to the social housing model to really expand that.stop developer giveaways . please do not pass this forward as a charter amendment and board, thank you. >> can we have the next caller please?>> caller: thank you very much, can you hear me okay west and mark. >> we can, please proceed. >> caller: i am director of the collective of morris street services. our community needs buildings at 30 to 50 percent of ami. that's what sanfrancisco needs right now .

and not this charade that really needs to go into the trash can.please focus on what we need. at 30 to 50 percent even up to 80 percent buildings would still make millionsof dollars . the level of greed is just unfathomable and we really need to focus that 30 to 50 percent ami for buildings. already about 80 latino families, individuals have been kicked out of the area of 14 in the last two months, illegal evictions that nobody's talking about and it's all because it's created budgets binge of building for people to make billions of dollars and builders to come in and masquerade as affordable housing so please, let'sbuild real affordable housing , reject this proposal which is

an attack on our community. thank you very much. >> thank you, can we have the next caller please? >> america again, and also in affordable housing activist . i think you heard from the no side. it's was expressed exactlyright on . i think that this is a boldfaced attempt by the writer of this charter to secure his career and his future career with donations. from the developer community, the real estate community and yes, the proponents of the so-calledgive these are also the arm of the real estate industry . so we see you and we know what you're doing and to take away the democratic local noise in

san francisco, another attempt to do that for not affordable housing is an outrage, really. thank you. >> can we have the next caller please? >> caller: this is elaine petty,district 5 . i find this charter amendment as written very disturbing because it is so chilling. i recommend expensive amendments will complete substitutions rather than outright rejection . we need to build up to 45,000 units ofaffordable housing by 2031 . that's a universally accepted definition of affordability at 20 percent ami. this proposal would come anywhere near getting us there

because it creates far too few affordable units at acceptable income levels. so number one should be to require 75 percent affordable units at an average of 80 percent ami. a max of 120 percent ami, no exceptions. the second change wouldbe to remove all reference to 100 percent affordable projects . these are streamlined and also remove the misnamed category of increased affordable projects. as it misleads the public into thinkingmarket rate projects are affordable housing . this would require changing the proposals name to market rate construction requiring 75 percent of affordable housing. lastly we need to keep streamlining but without sacrificing. community kidneyand the appeals process or when things go wrong

as they so often do . supervisors reallyworked at a crossroads . we need to continue to offer only cruelly deceptive trickles of affordable housing at increasingly unaffordable prices for we can offer people a bold equitable truly affordable progressive plan where those with the greatest needand fewest options get the most help .i think that's what you'll do. >> thank you. can we happen nextcaller please ? >> good afternoon supervisors. in the latino cultural district and we are moving the coalitio . we strongly urge you to reject the proposal charter amendment. this proposed charter amendment will allow working-class families in san francisco to undermine the goals and protections for cultural districts. it truly affordable housing is

key to keep our neighborhoods thriving. this affects bipoc communities and will no longer allow us to use resources which are community serving .this will also remove guidance for our architectures guidelines of requiring developers to meet committees to make certain character and maintain its cultural heritage. please reject this proposal, thank you . >> can we have the next caller please? >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is charlie, and this planning puts the expertise of our communities at the forefront to solve issues of displacement and affordability and inequality. it's a coalition and i urge you to vote against this proposed

charteramendment . although titled streamlining review of affordable housing this proposed measureprovides no affordable housing . in fact it does is streamline 100 percent market rate. by redefining affordable housing as 140 percent of the area median income this proposed measure will surely intensify the tremendous inequality in ourcity today and ensure that san francisco's future growth will exclude low incomeworking-class communities of color . we urge you to reject this charter amendment it transfers power to developers and past developers bottom line while providing nothing of value for san francisco . >> we have 30 colors on the line with 11 in like to speak. pressá3 to be added to the cutest. next caller please.

>> good afternoon supervisors. bruce, community land trust and member of the planning coalition.care clt echo and agree with the previous commenters against and urge you to close this proposed charter amendment. representative coalition and city planning puts the expertise of our ... on affordability and inequality. the proposed charter amendment is a direct attackon this mission. although titled streamlining review of affordable housing , this proposed measure provides no affordable housing. in fact, all it does is streamline and fast-track 100 percent market rate on affordable housing. by redefining quote affordable housing as being on the hundred 40 percent of area median income as proposed, this measure will give developers an

option to sidestep both the home and exclusionary housing programs. both osf andinclusionary have failed our communities but at least developers have to provide us with something . mister amendment effectively replaces both of those programs though developers can build 100 percent housing forthe wealthy people which will maintain already unaffordable houses, lead to prices going up everywhere and more displacement . no less makes acquisitions by nonprofit affordable housing even more challenging adding to the open market andproviding housing for the most needy people under 80 percent ami 140 percent, even 120 percent is not affordable . focused instead should be put on helping shrink the housing price bubble, not supporting it impenetrable.

this measure will makesure san francisco is only for the very wealthy and no longer a city working for the people . seniors and other on a fixed income. we urge you to reject this charteramendment because instead of providing affordable housing it silences communities . >> can we have the next caller please?>> my name is andrew and we urge you to oppose the proposed charter amendment for june 7. this is not the definition of equity when you provide developers more say in what happens with communities of color than the voices of the community themselves. this charter will disempower marginalized communities , black and indigenous people of color,low income residents, seniors and people with disability to determine their futures . nonprofit workers like me don't make anywhere close to 140 percent of the ami.

not even 120 percent. a one-bedroom apartment at 140 percent ami is 3729 a month, who can afford that? we urge you to reject this charter amendment because instead of providing affordable housing it silences communities and transfers power to developers. thankyou . >> and wehave the next caller please ? >> caller: that afternoon, can youhear me ? >> caller: my name is reina and i'm here representing the housing action teamin district 11. we are part of the equity coalition . it's a division of san francisco thatempowers historically marginalized communities , bipoc communities and no income communities. all residents and people with disabilities. we need to be able to determine our own future and this charter

amendment would work against that and is and is attack on our vision. althoughthis is called a streamlined review for affordable housing provide affordable housingfor people who can't afford affordable housing already . the affordable housing already aggravate our low income communities . community that are involved in shaping what they want to see in their future here in the district . i urge you to vote against this , do not pass this. to really engage the community. communities are the ones who will be there long after any other term. i urge youto look up to those communities. thank you . >> can we have the next caller please?>> that afternoon supervisors, my name is chanta with the race and equity planning coalition . the coalition urges you to vote against the proposed charter

amendment. the coalition envisions san francisco that empowers historically marginalized communities of bipoc and low income residents, seniors and people with disabilities. the power to determine our future. this proposed charter amendment is a direct attack and does nothing to truly address the affordability our communities desperately need . this measure silences bipoc communities fighting for our survival every day.this measure tells developers they can build whatever they want and tell our communities to step aside so they can make whatever profit they wantour expense . if this passes communities would no longer be able to organize to demand housing that's truly affordable, to demand uses that are community servingand demand open space that's actually usable. instead we will ship all power to profit driven developers . pushing this at all but

especially at a time when our communities are in instability is absolutely shameful and inequitable . we urge you to reject the charter amendment because instead of providing affordable housing it silences communities, transfers power to developers and pastdevelopers bottom line while providing nothing of value for our city. iq . >> next caller please.color, you can begin your public comment . >> caller: this is the director of surf, a nonprofit public policy organization that brings people together from spectrums to develop solutionsto the big problems in the living space. we are speaking in support of this charter amendment .

our city has thousands living on the streets and an increasing number of san franciscans unable to have a home get a four on affordable homesare held as a result of parochial models . this measure would make it simple and fast to build thousands of affordable homes in san francisco. the affordability requirement combined with the labor provisions make it possible to support real wage jobs and provide much-needed help at the various income levels that are solacking. this is a modest step to get more affordable housing built and for we urge you to move forward . >> thank you. can we have the nextcaller please ? >> caller: this is luisa conventionally with united commission and we are a member of the race equity and planning coalition. stating in this measure that 140 percent or even 120 percent

of the area median income is the new affordability when current median market rate trends are at 110 percent ami is an attempt to memorialize the disparity and the violence and gentrification into our city charter. as it currently stands, projects that over 50 percent of the units as affordable at 110 percent ami or below have the benefit of bypassing environmental review, hearings and appeals and fast track all city agencies. our average household income in the mission is $50,000 a year and thousands of our residents who try to apply can qualify the over 9000 households that didn't qualify competed devastating for a paltry number of affordable units while thousands of market rate units sit vacant. and helplessness is increasing internationally. city officials should be

focusing their attention on prioritizing the dignity, health, fragility and aspirations of our bipoc community and placing the needs of people over developers desirefor profits . i ask that you unanimously strike down this measure and send a message that our city charter will only be admitted to right the wrongs ofinequity, not in bremen . >> next caller please? >> i'm calling in support of the charter amendment. one problem our cities had is not a new problem. it's the cost of housing is incredible. this applies to marketrate, subsidized ,permanent supportive housing.it's all going to be expensive . one estimate puts it at about 750,000per unit.

so when you start doing the math , you want to be able to build the most housing and the way you can do that is by attacking the profit and this includes affordable housing. the biggest cost is obviously construction materials and land . but a good quarter of the fee is because of your long arduous permitting process which can take 5 to 10 years for any project including low income housing, subsidized housing and that is because of this crazy process that we have. this length of time is just untenable given the size of our housing crisis. i want to remind everyone that this was a project supported by many filipino groups that are in cinema. we are calling in support of the project and i happen to be filipino as well so this struck

a nerve with me. these are groups that wanted equity. they wanted to develop their community and they were calling in support but because of our cities process the project was killed by a white man that occasionally lives in san francisco but he's got his own house in wine country but because he workswith the process hecan reject 500 units , and 100 of those low income housing . i asked is the process working for the city? it makes sense that fully affordable projects are sent over a barrel? >> thank you, can we have the nextcaller please ?

>> caller: david philpel again, possibly the lasttime today. i close a combined amendment, i think that's a bad idea in structure . i would encourage the city attorney to develop a standard sentence for charter amendments that just directs the board of supervisors to adopt one or more conforming ordinances if the voters passed such a measure. so i would at a minimum several elements related to the planning code and this business and tax regulations code. i'm not sure that i like the concept here. i definitely would not alter the charter section 9.1184 planningcode section 101.1 . or prop him from 1996, that's kind of a big deal thing. this proposal actually sounds a lot like a and similar measures from scott weiner and those other efforts to eliminate appeals and process . agree with supervisor peskin

that you could consider this by ordinance and an act a separate version of it. and last two things, on monday could we hear from the controller's officeon this will impact prior to public comment on each of these measures and don't forget items 10 and 11 still on today's agenda. thanks for listening, great discussion today all of you . >> can we have the next caller please?>> this is mitchell from the affordable housing alliance and also san francisco anti-displacement coalition and i like to call attention to our letter in the file by this point hopefully. i want to say something a little different than what we've mentioned before which is i really do understand the legislative process and i appreciate the legislative process and i appreciate it

it's a collaborative process that moves forward and adjustments are made and changes you know, but hopefully improve something as it goes through aprocess . but still, this is really awkward here because this is not that situation. we're looking to a drop dead date on a charter amendmentso it's kind of a moving target . i'm not sure what to talk about herei'm waiting to hear supervisor mandelman's comments that were put on hold . i'll point out theobvious which is 140 percent and i is not affordable .i also want to point out that democracy is not always aerodynamic. i have to note that discretionary review is the main way the community has been able to get increased affordability . i would implore you not to give up the one mechanism that has increased affordability and committee benefits in exchange for streamlining marketrate

housing. this is profoundly undemocratic . we elected you as our representatives from 11 districts and we don't really want to substitute that purely ministerial act for city departments controlled by the majors. don't forfeit the powerwe as citizens have granted to you to exercise on ourbehalf . maybe weneed to make adjustments there but again, democracy is democracy . it's not always aerodynamic . i don't think this charter amendment is even ready to be fully discussed and that was kind of frustrating so i'm not sure if we will have it. >> can we have the next caller please? >> this is rick call with cultural action network and a member of the united states division . we oppose this charter

amendment. it takes away the weight of our city officials andconstituents, that's we the people . it's not affordable housing and it's very title is a lie. it's a giveaway to speculators that will use it to build on the higher end and actually hurt affordability. please oppose this and thank you. >> thank you, we are down to 26 listeners and i would keep that inmind when you speak . can we have the next caller please?>> good afternoon supervisors. my name is don missing me and i'm with the richmond district. i vote on race and equity in all planning coalitions. the coalition strongly urges you to vote against the proposed charter amendment. this coalition is a coalition

that brings together organizations from virtually all our communities. to unite ourvoices to seek justice and self-determination . we have decades of struggle against financial interests that have colluded with politicians whoenacted laws that were promoted as improving the city . by wiping out people of low income communities. weare the product of decades of opposition to these policies . by frustrated grassroots organizations that were pitched against each other by the city. we formed out of necessity collectively defend ourselves against the unabated onslaught on ourcommunities . and sadly this charter amendment is another example of how our city government does not act in our best interest. this is a blatant attempt to remove any vestige of public oversight through the machinations of corporations under the guise of promoting affordable housing.our coalition is strongly supported

affordable housing but when we see affordable we'retalking about affordable for regular people, not wealthy people. this charter amendment is an abomination and it should never have seen the light of day. do the right thing and kill it .thank you. >> can we have the next caller please ? >> good afternoon. my name is susan marsh. in the conflict of the situation where by the city's own calculations only 19 percent of projects in the pipeline are affordable and in which as you've heard many people facing homelessness and displacement cannot even access affordable housing in the city, we are now presented with an initiative that would essentially streamline market rate housing when we all know that market rate housing is not

affordable to the vast majority of the people working in this town. and of course at the same time the same legislation would deny working-class bipoc communities any voice and eight avenue to demand the housing theyneed and greater affordability . i urge you to reject this legislation, this charter amendment out of hand. thank you. >> can we have the next caller please? >> this is kim from the san franciscolabor council . although the labor council has not taken an opinion on this, some people did share their concerns with me that it doesn't go far enough to provide real housing for real

working people. you know, essentially this legislation says you give up on housing workers in the city and you're putting them in the east bay and farther away. you know, it's adding to congestion in the city and it's really you know, we keep on hearing about the worker shortage. there is no workershortage . you've pushed the workersout of the city and this is continually happening over and over again . whereare the waiters in la ? where are the waitresses going tolive ? where are all these workers going to live -mark market rate housing is not affordable. we have teachers living in rvs. we have hotel workersliving in one room with their entire families . i don't think this is fair housing issues and it doesn't go far enough in providing

housing for everyday working families. i also want to say that this is not the way to put together affordable housingcharter amendment .you know, i was never asked about this until someone happened to email it to me. you've got to put together a coalition of people and get them in the room and have them put their ideas together. that's what is going to make a really effective charter amendment if we want to go this route and get all the concerned parties in the room. not just about the developers, it's not just about the job. it's also what the city is going to look like after the housing and that needs to be, it requires a real vision by all the supervisors coming together what that san francisco . >> canwe hear from the next caller please ? we can hear you, please proceed. >> my name is kathy lipscomb

and i'm a member of the senior disabilityaction center san francisco and i'm a housing activist . i'd like to remind you that the current minimum wage in san francisco is $16.36 per hour which translates into $31,334 a year. we're talking about folks who are not intelligible in any way for this kind of proposal. so i think you should really look at it. i look at it as steamrolling rather than streamlining. and you've got to reject it and we have to have something that a coalition has described by the previous speaker which would be a very democratic way to proceed. as far asseniors are concerned , presently across both senior occupied units and also disability occupied units, over

75 percent of households report actual income levels below 20 percent of ami. also, rents this translates into rents based on 30 percent of ami represent at least half of monthly incomes. half of monthly incomes or households with income levels at 20 percent of ami. we don't needthis steamrolling .we need a fair, just way to proceed. we're now at market rate 148 percent of market rate target, 148 percent. that's way over and 35 percent of our low market rate target so something isseriously wrong . this is not the way to proceed. a few. >> can we have our next caller please?

>> my name is kayla fong and i am on the council and land use committee as well and i'm calling in to urge, to reject this charter amendment. this sounds like a complete passive gentrification and displacement of bipoc and low income communities and seemingly feel like it's just, it will i'm sorry. yeah, it sounds like it's a market rate housingdisguised as affordable housing . and i lived here my whole life and it's making me harder to stay in the city. i also work in the city and the

mission district and we need to look out for each other and protect our people so that we can all continue to live and stay here. that's all i have to say, thanks. >> can we have the next caller please?>> good afternoon supervisors. my name is oskar and i'm not in support of the charteramendment proposals . i'm a community member and immigrant and homeowner raised in san francisco. i'm also a volunteer member of the strong leadership council providing a response to local life in families and last year the latino task force has service five thousand latin neighbors for foodin our communities .

these daily gut wrenching emotional interactions with committee members i think that there concerned at the market rate housing development but there's public investment policies that champion these affordable housing units every day. these charter proposals would refuse to have any communications. this charter proposal creates a false narrative that 140 percent ami in a district with teachers and laborers, we're speaking for a governing body expressed their concerns. those it worse by the housing prices will no longer have the ability to negotiate for higher affordability or uses. i urge you to reject this charter amendment .i work for the real estate industry and instead focus on viable ways to create housing for those of us who do not make 130 k per year. let's put that energy towards

stabilizing and creating homeownership opportunities fo the rest of us. thank you . >> can we have the next caller please?>> david wu with the filipinocultural heritage districts, part of the rest coalition . we strongly oppose the proposed charter amendment. this amendment isextremely misleading in its naming. it does not support affordable housing . instead it appears to undermine existing wooden affordable housing programs and create unaffordable housing that the developers of market rate housing. by redefining market rate housing housing as 140 percent ami. this charter amendment shows as

the proposed changes and nothing to dowith creating affordable units. this amendment in effect creates the streamlining of 140 percent market rate housing pretending to be affordable housing . increased affordable housing project is soliciting as they barely provide an increase and provide the same very high ami . the use of languagesurrounding affordability and affordable housing is being twisted in order to promote market rate development that our communities do not need . we need truly affordable housing, not for market rate housing that causes increased gentrification and displacement . working-class residents, families including families where multiple members of the household and seniors especially seniors on fixed income, these range from 10 to 90percent . our house is neighbors supported how is actual affordablehousing that is needed and we ask that you reject this charter amendment and thank you . >> caller please.

>> good afternoon supervisors, this is to be a gomez, research analyst and i can providefor you many times . i wanted to raise some grave concernsabout how this amendment is currently constructed . our concerns include but not not limited to the possible impacts that this currently constructive edification could have on the cityconditional use process . but our concerns are not limited to that. there is also a deeper issue that weakening the ability of the city to use the conditional use process to get projects approved that could actually be a benefit to the community so we look forward to an attempt to talk about are concerned with that but with respect to that problem i also have heard a great deal of testimony from

people whose life is about providing affordable housing and they are raising grave concerns that this will result in fewer units of truly affordable housing created in the city and that will limit the community's ability to negotiate for projects that provide affordable housing.i urge you to he is concerned i want to push back against the premise of this charter it says it provides housing at all levels of income. we need more affordable housing and so i urge you to listen to those concerns from people who have studied this day in and day out and are telling you this will not be delivering on its promise. thank you. >> can we get our next caller please?>> my name is susan,

and a former nurse and small business owner. as much of what i want today has alreadybeen said by many of the people who spoke so eloquently . i just want to say that i think this is a joke. it should be called streamlining reduction of affordable housing.it's insulting to be told that the way we're going to build affordable housing is by building housing that's not affordable and calling it affordable housing. i mean, how stupid do you think we are? it's an insult. i don't agree that this should be a ordinance rather than a charteramendment. i think this belongs in the garbage can . it is completely absurd. and pretty much everything else

i'dlike to say hasalready been said by other people so i will end , thank you . >> any people who jump on at the lastminute, we have one last caller . >> supervisors, for the last 40 years i've been following this city and the promises it has been making for so far affordable housing.we have over 85 homes in san francisco that are weakened. and thousands of units, market price that are weakened. supervisors, some of you before you allowed the developers and

now suddenly you're saying something that means nothing. they understand the issues. more of those that are waiting for 10, 15, 20 years to get into so-called affordable housing i would say deliver $100,000. so this initiative is bogus. this initiative is waking us in broad daylight. and you should recently the mayor of new york came back behind closed doors. you are putting up a freedom of information act. we want to see what the mayor

of new york was negotiating looks. our mayoris in bed with the developers , there's no doubt about that. thank you very much. >> we have one more jumping in. >> caller: hello? my name is chapman, president of district 2 in san francisco speaking in support of the charter amendment. one thing that i agree that we have is a huge housing crisis for people of low incomes but we have you know, our shortage has become so bad that. have crept up the income scale and people who are making the median income, 100 percent of the ami, 120 percent now find

it hard to afford to stay insan francisco so while i believe i agree this is not enough i believe this is one step to helping provide affordability solutions for people in middle income areas . i don't have to remind the supervisors san francisco as a board of supervisors must prove a housing element that the state must approved by the january of next year. san francisco must be able to plan for realistically building 82,000 homes in the next eight years and it must demonstrate to the department ofhousing and community development as a state that it is removing barriers to housing and this is one way to do that . failure of the city to approve the housing element by complying with the state would cost the city tolose funding and lose out on local land use a variety . so i believe these are some things that must betaken into consideration when deciding about the charter amendment . >> anyone else for public comment?

>> we have one more, we are doublechecking . we have to more. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is megan wilson. on behalf of our organization we strongly urge you to oppose the proposed charter amendment. this amendment will disempower historically marginalized communities, bipoc immigrants, low income and no income residents and seniors like myself withdisabilities to determine our future . firefighters, nurses, teachers and nonprofit workers do not make 140 percent of area median in hundredthousand per year and 186,000 for a family of four . the one bedroom apartment is 3700 among. honestly, who can afford that weston mark it's a slap in the face to essential workers who have labored tirelessly over the past two years to keep san

francisco operating. we urge you to reject this charter amendment because rather than providingaffordable housing it silences communities,transfer power to profit driven developers and provide nothing of value to san francisco . thank you for the opportunity to see and i appreciate your time . >> next speakerplease. >> i'm a third generation excelsior number . i'm also one of the founders of guide24 and a member of the land use committee . i don't appreciate the language and its offending to me. i worked at the vaccine center on 24th and cats. every single person, none of us can afford even half of 130,000 which is what's required and there's housing on norton so

this charter amendment that i'm against is that every single person at risk their life every day to work and help people with covid. everyone i live with has to rent a room and a lot of the people i work with are nurses trying toget a second job so how can you sit down and say you don't know this that our income is enough to afford one of these places . so either we're lied to or whoever set this up is stupid and ispersonally offensive to me and i'm very much against it. thank you . >> any othermembers of the public who wish to comment ? >> one last double check. that was the last person in the queue for public comment. >> before we hear from supervisor mandelman who will

pose a question to supervisor safai, i will state the relevant sentence from the brief one page report from the controller is should the proposed charter amendment be approved by the voters, not my opinion but the controller's opinion, it would quote, have an undetermined but likely not significant impact on the cost of governance. that has been read into the record . next we will read those into the record as remaining charter amendments. having said that and i look forward to the exchange of the proposing supervisor, i know it is cosponsored by no other supervisors. i look forward to the exchange of the committee members and supervisor safai and in the interest of winnowing the things that the committee has

tocontinue talking about i am inclined to just call it a day today . but i would like to hear from my colleagues and supervisor safai but i kind of feel like this is one and done supervisor mandelman . >> thank you chair peskin. i'm sorry, i have a few questions for supervisor safai and i want to thank supervisor safai for his willingness to engage with me at my office over the last week since we've tried to wrestle with this and i'm really honestly struggling with this proposal because i see what supervisor safai is trying to do and i think in many ways it is laudable and i'm also very concerned about the consequence of both intended and unintended of its passage. the thing i thinks are laudable

is his effort to build on the experience of sp 35. sb 35 by the state 20 17 was a measure that was streamlined the production of affordable housing, affordable housing projects to be present, of which half of the projects are at 80 percent ami. i think we've seen throughout the state that has both streamlined the approval processes for fully affordable projects including in san francisco and also encouraged market rate developers to develop projects or to figure out projects that are going to be 50 percent affordable which is heretofore unheard of or very littleheard of . so i am sympathetic to the idea of expanding those sb 35

streamlining provisions to other types of perhaps slightly higher housing. recognized by the state in our local codes.i think the move that supervisor safai has talkedabout is taking it one from 140 percent to 120 percent makes a lot of sense . these are still going to be hard to build, hard to finance but there are a lot of people in the city who struggle, anyone in the city with a household income below 120 percent of ami struggles . and i think finding a way to get some more of that housing produced inthe city is reasonable. we are under producing that .

we're not producing that to the same extent as projects that are already streamlined by sp 35 but we are under producing housing below 120 percent of ami. i thinkthat makes a lot of sense . i also have consistency with the notion that if our codes defined the type of housing we want. that is it provides the height, the basic descriptions in our codes of what the building should be like . i think the right way to go forward and the right way to encourage developers who want to build in sanfrancisco is to let folks build the housing that's described in our code . and one of the concerns i have about the way in which the knot affordable piece of this the increase, what is so-called increased affordable is mainly

market rate.it's that we're saying we're going to streamline that and also streamline other stuff. we're going to streamline stuff that is nothing like what's described in our codes because we're going to streamline projects that are in excess of what we would allow in our codes but because we might in our code have a cu, we're going to allow that. going to cut out any rule or the historic preservation commission and protect historic resources which seems challenging to me. and i talked about this with the supervisor and he knows i have a problem with this but there is a provision here that requires or not requires but allows the board of supervisors to expand the provision but

nonetheless to extend the provisions of this legislation to any housing project so we're not really just talking about this particular category as 25 and older needing a certain labor standards but actually anything potentially and that could be problematic to me. the last thing is we were in a moment of crisis right now and we need to do things to address that crisis but there is real value in local government decision-makers having some discretion about what gets built in communities. we heard a lot from people who called in about advocacy and ways in which that discretion can be used to get otherwise entirely motivated developers to dothings that are beneficial to the community and i think that's important . i'm concerned about giving that away forevermore so any version of this that i might support at

the very least and i'm still not sure this would be enough for me, would have to conform to our local zoning and have to have a time limit on it. and in 10 years we can evaluate and get to see whether it's working or not. but i don't see giving away our discussion forever.those are a couple outstanding big picture directions or thoughts for supervisor safai, some of which i've alreadyshared . one question this morning is that we have thesedevelopers , market rate developers looking at trying to do sb 35 projects in san francisco that is projectsthat will be 50 percent affordable , paid for by market rate developers . ifthis were to go on the ballot , why would any of them move forward withthose projects ? >> say that last part again.

>> i know there are developers trying to figure out how to make sb 35 streamlined projects work in san francisco. that is, make money and give it back to their investors and also produce significant developments that are 50 percent affordability at 80 percent of ami. i don't see why any of them would go forward with it and i apologize, but why would any of them moveforward with those if they could do a project that was a 20 percent affordable project ? >> supervisor i could say right off the bat i can't deal with hypotheticals. i can tell you in mydistrict where the rents are different , construction costs, land costs are different but the rest of the land costs are very different . we were able toproduce the first project at 150 percent

affordable . supervisor peskin was on the land use committee with me on that. 50 percent at 100 percent ami. >> and was that ansb 35 project ? >> we had to have 80 percent ami. one of the things we are looking looking at based on our conversation is an amendment that would talk about doing something that says 50 percent of the units after averaged 100 percent ami and then that just dates on the fact that we knew atleast one was done and that there are others under consideration . i don't know any affect 80 percent but you bring up a good point. if you'd like-response to a couple of different things. supervisor peskin, i know this has been a long day and i definitely want to get my amendments in because we have to to go forward for next week but idon't want to belabor the conversation .

i will say that definitely open to what you just said about potentially there being like sb 35, let's have a conversation about it we were to move forward in time frame. let's talk about the right ami's under the affordable housing.i do want to say for the record because i think there's a lot of confusion and we have had this debate on the board. that's what i referenced the time which supervisor peskin and i got on the board. we had this conversation about inclusionary housing and yet. >> this is alicia sierra, the ridgeline hasdropped , can we take a five minute recess. >> i have a hard stop at four. we will recess for five minutes, we will be back. >> i don't think they have five minutes, let's give it a couple more. >> we will just sit here.

we will stop talking otherthan i have a hardstop at 4 . and that's all i'll say for now . >> this should be a simple fix, it'sjust reconnecting the ridgeline . ... >> chair: i will say this while we reconnecting theridgeline . i still don't have your amendment. >> we emailed them to the cler so hopefully the clerk can redistribute them .i'll do that whilewe're waiting for the board . didyou get done, supervisor mandelman ? did you get them? >> how ask right now, hold on. we will just email them to everybody.

but we did send them to the clerk. is the ridgeline backup? we stillhave two more items after this . >> mister chair, the ridgeline isnot back up .

... and not to make to find a point of it supervisor but generally we email them to our colleagues. >> supervisor, i know that. i'm sorry. i'm not sure why thatdidn't happen that's normally the practice of my office and you know that . it's coming to you right now. >> testing a bridge. okay, the bridge is up. >> mister chair, you guys can proceed . >> mister chair, we can continue this conversation. i know you have 20 minutes left for 2 other items. it would be great if i could

read into the record the amendments emailedto you and the clerk . and at least take that off the can i do that? can i read the amendments to at least get them into the record? >> chair: how lengthy are they? >> should be pretty quick, 2 minutes. on page line to add the word units, page 6 and capitalize, page 15; added. page 9, and will. page 9 and 10 and also 12 through 15 and 1 through 3 we will add contractors and subcontractors will maintain weekly payroll records, certified payroll records for submission to the office of labor standards. when than 30 days perspective of the board's charter

provision the city administrator will introduce to the board of supervisors and within 180 daysfrom the effective date of the charter the city shall connect an ordinance to establish an enforcementmechanism . our prevailing wage and certified payroll records . the office of labor standards will enforce the prevailing wage section . we essentially do the same in all those areas and then we add a section that says that section a and b shall not apply to contractors and subcontractors performing work that is already subject to labor agreements that require prevailing wage enforcement obligations through an arbitration process and for the purpose of that subparagraph project labor agreements at the same meaning in the state code and those decided and then online 10, page 10 line 18 for 25 and page 11 lines 1 and two same thing. talks about it references

project labor agreements for skilled and trained and not just prevailing wage. that's specified in those areas and on page 11 lines 13 and 14 that meet the requirements of subsection b and b 4. those are all the amendments today and we also were able to change 140 percent a.m. i to 120 percent ami and that is on page six, line 25. so if we can make a motion to accept those amendments. >> we might but one, supervisor mandelman, has your question answered? >> i will express my additiona concerns and get it out there .

i have a nitpicky kind of question with supervisor safai on page 7 under affordable housing. the way it reads could be a multi family residential affordable housing project could be a multi family residential use could be much smaller than 25. it could be a couple of affordable units and a whole bunch of other stuff that's not residential and iwas curious if that was the intention .>> it's only intended to be 25 units or more. >> including four important projects. i think that might need a little cleanup . i think you already knew and there are changes here. maybe not. page 8, line 6 affordable.

i'm not sure. i think page 8, my line 5is there is a reference to affordable units and it's unclear what that is . >> we define affordable housing to units so it's clear they're not trying to invest with the inclusionary ami or osf . only for how we define affordable housing here. >> i have some uncertainty. my absolute no is the state density bonus. i am not certain about giving away small conditions. any of the uses that are being thrown out the window if i wonder if there are more if there are responses to these elements if we do want to increase heights. we've had some back and forth

about thegoals of the historic preservation commission . and my last point is on the giving up of authority over leases or funding that the board of supervisors might otherwise approve it occurs to me that's only relevant to affordable projectsand i don't know why we would dothat . so those are my comments . >> supervisor chan. i've got a hard stop in 15 minutes and we have 2 items left. >> thank you chair peskin. iwant to express a similar sentiment that i had expressed earlier today or maybe monday . about another charter amendment proposed by the mayor after hearing many of those who are in the trenches working on that issue opposing the charter amendment. actually it's very similar to

the fact that stakeholders who are at the table and can really figure this out. it's not really producing the result those who really are in the trenches know this issue well, that they would love to see. so with that i want to say what i already said about another charter amendment is that i oppose this and i have strong reservations about the amendments proposed before us today. i understand and i have heard the public comments and i will look to my colleagues on this committee to decide how to move forward with the next but that'smy position . >> chair: thank you supervisor chan supervisor safai, respectfully you reference the inclusionary

discussion and i referenced it as well . i referenced it inthe context that inclusionary percentages should never have been included in the charter in 2012 . that's actually resulted in the loss of probably several thousand units of what would have been affordable housing when the market went nuts and people were building a lot and we were building to a small percentage and everybody agreed but before we could do anything about it we needed to take it out of the charter where it never belongs but you were referencing it because you got involved after it passed and after we started the process of figuring out how to make the inclusionary affordable housing percentages dynamic instead of static which was something that primarily provider kim and i worked on but that led to a process which you were a part of. that brought many stakeholders to the table in figuring that

out. that respectfully has been completely lacking here. that has been so heavy to me. i started this thinking there was a lot of work to be done and i didn't think it was going to be salvageable or i was not inclined to think it would be salvageable for june but i started this meeting thinking they would take them and keep this conversation alive but after hearing a comment from such a broad array of folks from throughout the city are long-term stakeholders who are knowledgeable, it's false so look, i think if you want to go about this in the right way it is convening those different stakeholders. come up with something that people are going to say this and that about andare going to support and oppose but not like this .i don't need to go through this again next monday and he monday and here the same

stuff because armaments which i can follow as you're reading them to me right now should have been given to me yesterday, butanyway, whatever it is what it is . i now have . but here's what we just heard from mycolleagues and from the chair . it's that this thing is about to die but if you want us to amend it and then tell it you can do that for we can tell it and then you can reintroduce at some point when you gotit right and the amendments will be part of it . >> i would prefer you amend it todayand send it . >> we can amend it and table it or we can amend it. >> so you're saying under no circumstances will you send this to the board ofsupervisors for a debate . >> that's what i'm saying. this is democracy in action that is the position of this

supervisor. >> let's at least start with the amendment and we can revoke it. >> mister clark i would like t make a motion to adopt the amendment . >> on that motion, supervisor chan. [roll call vote] the motion passes without objection. >> i'd like to make a motion t table this item as amended . >> the motion as amended, supervisorchan . [roll call vote] the motion passes with vice chair mandelmandissenting . >> next item please. >> care peskin, would it be

okay if i read 10 and 11 west and mark item 10 is a motion to reappoint the supervisor to a local agency commission. item 11 is a motion to reappoint supervisor dean preston term ending february 4, 2026 as alternate number to the local agencyformation commission . >> chair: is there any public commenton this item ? >> members to call 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 2494 817 181 . then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so we are double checking with operations right now . we have no colors in line to speak atthis time .

>> then we will close public comment and i like to make a motion tosend both of these items to the full board on recommendation. roll call please . >> on a motion to recommend item 10 and 11, supervisor chan . [roll call vote] the motion is adopted without objection . >> chair: we are adjourned.