>> good morning. and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, february 7th, 2022. i am aaron peskin. i am joined by committee members. our clerk is victor young. please could you make your announcements. >> yes. the meeting will reflect that community members participate through videoconference to the same extent as though physically present. public access to city services is essential and invites public participation in the following ways. public comments will be available on each item on the -- on each agenda on san francisco

government t.v. there is a public call in number across the screen. each speaker will be given two minutes to speak. comments are other opportunities to speak during public comment. you can call by phone. >> one moment. i'm not quite done. just a little distracted. when connected, you'll hear the meeting discussion but you will be meeting -- you will be in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, doused are three to be added to the speaker list. the item of interest will come up and you can be added to the speaker line. call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turned down your television or radio and alternatively you can

submit public comment by e-mail. if you submit by e-mail it will be forwarded to the supervisors at included as part of the file. comments could be written and sent by u.s. mail. that concludes my comments. >> thank you, mr. young. this amendment has been before this committee on two occasions and this is the third occasion. it is the chief -- the chief sponsor is my colleague on the panel, supervisor chan and is cosponsored by myself and supervisors ronen and preston. i think it is fundamentally a charter amendment aimed at making government deliver the promises of government better

and more efficiently. with that, i will turn it over to supervisor chan. >> chair peskin may i read the title? >> that would help. >> item one is a charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco suits to submit the powers and make appointment to the falling bodies between the mayor and the board of supervisors for the area of port commission, arts commission civil service commission, commission on the environment, commission on status of women, health commission, historic preservation commission, human rights commission, human services commission, library commission, the transportation agency board of directors, recreation and parks commission and war memorial performing arts centre. approval to the board of supervisors provide that appropriate appointing

authorities and may initiate removal of commissioners as specified as the terms of members of members of the commission. it shall be for four years. and specify the types of functions that the city administrator may receive. >> thank you. with that, i will turn it over to supervisor chan. >> thank you, chair peskin. and thank you mr. clerk for the announcements. you know, chair peskin, since i took office i have brought up areas of other concerns. our city does not deliver its promise for quality and equitable city services year after year. people are concerned for their safety and the cleanliness of streets, the lack of reliable public transit and worry about our recovery from the pandemic and embarrassed by the city's

public corruption. to address these concerns, i took a dive into understanding our city government structure, focusing on how to deliver city services without colonialism. will help of our budget and legislative analyst office and other research, we produced a good and clean government proposal. a charter amendment to create checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of the government and the independent city administrator gigi office to deliver equitable city service. since then, i have heard from supporters of the charter amendment that while they support the policy of the split commission, they felt existing legislation did not go far enough to balance executive power and concerns with the city's ability to administrate a new system. and then we also have opponents who are concerned who who have given power to the board of supervisors, but they don't seem to understand that as city and county government, each district

supervisor plays the role of county supervisors and city council members. in order to help voters understand the impact of the proposed charter amendment, it is clear that a lot of civic education needs to be done among our everyday voters. meanwhile, my team and i are working on other legislative tools that may systematically improve our city services through existing legislative process. with this feedback and progress that we have made in the last few weeks, i really plan to pause the charter amendment for now so we can regroup, improve the legislation and work on an appointment mechanism that will truly deliver a fair balance of power within city government. i think all the good government stakeholders and many, many san franciscans have written, e-mailed, and called in with their support. i will continue to push any legislation necessary to improve our city government before amending the charter.

supervisor peskin, chair peskin, i hope to have your support today to make the motion to table this to continue to the call of the chair. thank you. >> before we go to public comment, do you want to table this or do you want to continue this to the call of the chair? >> my apologies, i want to table this. >> okay. why don't we open up item number 1 to public comment. >> yes, while we are checking to see if there any members of the public to speak, members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number on the screen. if you haven't already done so, dial star three to line up to speak. i believe we have three callers

in line to speak on this matter. >> for speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. this is catherine howard. i want to thank you for your persistence in this and the other charter amendments. i will continue to support this charter amendment. i supports this to address the culture of corruption in san francisco and to add checks and balances to some of the most important commissions and policies as sitting bodies in the city. this kind of amendment will give the public an opportunity to weigh in and participate while the mayor would still appoint the majority of the commissioners. for those folks out there who thinks them if the mayor is going to listen to them, i challenge you to go online and listen to the 100% my oral appointed commission such as the recreation and park commission and find a time when those commissioners listen to and responded in favour of the members of the public who did not have an inn in city hall.

years ago we did a study for three years of commission meetings and not a single one had a dissenting vote. i will continue to support this amendment and others to seek to expand the power of the public to have input in what happens in our city government. thank you. >> thank you. speaker, please. >> good morning. this is jordan davis, she, her. i agree with and want to commend a supervisor chan for deciding to put this off for the review. i just don't think it goes far enough to really put meaningful checks and balances on the mayor. we have more checks and balances on the federal levels then we do here in city hall, and of course,, san francisco is not in independent country. if i can make two suggestions,

one, both commissions should be majority or do appointees. we all remembers what happened during christine johnson. i would also like to look into making some of the commissions elected. i'm thinking the rent board, which is elected in berkeley and santa monica, and i think a few other cities and make the nta board elected much like 80 transit. even make the puc board elected like with what san francisco -- sacramento does with the municipal utilities district. i think these things should be studied and there needs to be a lot more independence from the mayor and i really think that we should look at electing more of our boards. and looking towards other counties and other transit districts, and other special districts and see what they are doing. thank you. i yieled my time. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. >> eileen bogan, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my own behalf. and strong support of this charter and in support of supervisor chan's motion to table. i would urge the charter amendment to be amended to reduce the number of boards and commissions from 18 down to eight. those to be the airport commission, environment, fire, historic preservation, library, m.t.a. board of directors, puc, recreation and park commission. i believe this would focus it on more of the high-profile and critical commissions while illuminating the allegation of overreach. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of

the public to testify on item number 1? >> yes, i believe we have additional speakers at this time. >> go ahead. >> good morning, supervisors. i just wanted to commend supervisor chan for tabling this amendment. i believe it should be tabled and i believe it should be vastly rewritten so it is not a rebound of our checks and balances in the city. that it is, instead perhaps reducing the commission sizes. i definitely agree with that. i do not agree that we should be considering something that basically rewrites our structure of government without a very good look into this. thank you. ice appreciate supervisor chan

tabling this amendment. >> next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. linda schafer. i am still a supporter of this charter amendment and i look forward to seeing what happens in the future as work on it progresses. i just wanted to add a few thoughts as that work continues. i often describe myself as a citizen advocate for nature and environmental justice. today i am wearing my hat as dr. schafer, retired academic economist. the question would be, how is economic thinking relevant to the process of nominating people to fill seats on citizen advisory bodies? it is very. there is an important area of research in economics centred on the role of information gathering and making informed choices, to use a current buzz

phrase. the basic premise is that gathering information is costly in terms of time and money because of this, people are not always able to make best or rational choices. back to the proposed charter amendment, let's say the city's goal is to have citizen advisory bodies comprised of trustworthy people who have at least some familiarity with the matters they will be charged with overseeing. finding such people requires gathering information. the mayor, no matter who has been elected, is one person with one set of staff at the -- and advisors. it is asking a lot for that limited number of information seekers, with all the goodwill in the world to do a thorough job of finding the best people for every seat, every time. how much more sensible to have 12 elected officials, all with staff and advisors engaged in

the search for those people. this is not about power. it is about cost and benefit. i urge all supervisors to support making decisions based on the broadest set of environmental -- vindman information available -- >> are there any other members of the public to testify for item number 1? >> i believe there is one additional caller. >> please proceed. >> can you hear me okay? >> yeah. >> yes, we can. please proceed. >> i would be one additional caller. good morning. i have generally supported this and i continue to. i have made a number of comments, including suggesting that it be limited to only some boards in the commission -- some boards and commissions. i liked eileen's comment to focus on particular boards and commissions. i hope that they section on the

city administrator's powers and duties and ability to reorganize functions and that is not lost here and that that gets some attention in the future. thank you very much to supervisor chan for proposing this. i hope the next version that comes out of this process addresses the various public comments made and i've heard some very helpful comments the last few weeks on this. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public for this item? >> yes, we are doing one last double check. that was our last speaker for public comment on this matter. >> okay. public comment is closed. thank you to supervisor chan for starting this thought-provoking discussion that has its roots in the 1996 charter, or the 1995 amendments that were pursued by then president of the board, or

was she just a supervisor, barbara kaufman. that probably would deserves some revisiting and rethinking. today will not be that day. so on supervisor chan's motion to table item number 1, mr. young, it will call, please. >> yes, on that motion... [ roll call ] mandelman absent. [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection with supervisor mandelman being absent. >> next item, please. >> [reading the items]

>> thank you, mr. young. like the previous item, this is the third hearing on this charter amendment. i want to thank supervisor melgar, who is the chief sponsor of this piece of legislation crafted in the wake of the ongoing revelations of corruption at the department of building inspection. that is probably not over yet. i don't think we have heard the last word on that that resulted in the resignation and the head of the department of building inspection and the indictment of

other individuals. i very much appreciate supervisor melgar's work to clean that up, at least in part. this charter amendment is not going to be the whole solution, but it is certainly part of that solution. and with that, i will turn it over to supervisor melgar. >> thank you so much, chair peskin and supervisor chan. at this is a modest and absolutely necessary change to how we nominate and appoint the members of the building inspection commission and the oversight that they exercised over the department. it also changes the structure of who oversees the director and

the protections that leadership teams and the committee secretary have in terms of their role and if they see something that they want to challenge or blow the whistle on practices that they don't agree with, they will now be covered by civil-service protection. thank you so much, chair peskin for your support, and to supervisors mandelman and ronen for their support as well. i have worked with all of your offices and stakeholders to make sure that this measure will be the beginning of a set of fixes that we need to ensure the department goes forward and is efficient, accountable and transparent to keep folks safe in our buildings and to have folks have faith again and how

our government works. thank you so much for considering this and i beg for your support. >> i don't think you need to beg. let's open this up to public comment. >> yes, we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if you have not already done so, dial star three to be added to the cue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been an muted and you may begin your comment. it looks like we have two callers on the line for public comment at this time. >> for speaker, please -- first speaker, please. >> coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, speaking on my own behalf in support. thank you. >> think you. next speaker. -- thank you. next speaker. >> good morning again. this is jordan davis. i just want to say that although i appreciate the charter

amendment and as someone who has served on an advisory body under the department of building inspection, i think this is really important to address the culture of corruption. with that said, i don't think it goes far enough. as we have heard, as i have touched on in the last item, it needs to be majority board appointees. we all remembered what happened with christine johnson's planning commission back in 2016 were -- when airbnb came up. i just don't think that this is going to be necessarily meaningful if one person can control the majority of the appointments. and one person has the -- their thumb on the scale. i'm not enthusiastic about this charter amendment. there's just too much corruption in the city to really demand any less than equalizing the balance

of power. i just can't support this. i yieled my time. >> thank you, miss davis. next speaker, please. >> good morning, my name is veronica beard. i am calling on behalf of d. to unite. i oppose this charter amendment. i believe that if the board is willing to table other amendments, they should be reevaluating what is currently written and what is there right now does not serve the citizens of san francisco. i ask you to please listen and oppose this measure. thank you. >> next speaker. >> and hear me okay. >> we can. please proceed. >> just just make your comments,

you don't have to ask that question every time. >> i appreciate the admonition, but there are a number of technology issues here on the city's end, on my end, so want to be sure that i can be heard. that's all. anyway, i support this measure. it is not perfect, but it is far better than the status quo. i appreciate comments that others have made, that i have made on this over the last few weeks. and thank you to supervisor melgar for proposing this measure. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public on item number 2? >> we are double checking at this moment. that was the last call her for this matter. >> okay. public comment is closed. any further comments from supervisor melgar or supervisor chan?

>> thank you, chair peskin. i want to thank supervisor melgar for her leadership on this issue. it has been very astonishing to learn about all that had happened in our building and inspection department. it is good to see that we are making some reform. i do agree with supervisor melgar that it is a modest reform, but i also understand how challenging it is to do this fundamental and structural reform as well. i think that this is a good beginning. i think that there's a lot more work that needs to be done and we shouldn't think that this one ballot measure will solve it all, but i also love the fact that, you know, by supporting this and having it on the june

ballot also keeps us to really continue that effort and conversation about the corruption that we are tackling in this city and how much work still needs to be done. i think voters and san franciscans need to be reminded of this point, and all the way until june and beyond until we really solve the corruption problem in san francisco. i am happy to support it today and move this forward to really hopefully also have support of all of our colleagues of the full board to keep this conversation alive and have this conversation going and really we constant reminder that corruption is real. it is happening to our government and we need to work very hard to tackle that and restore public trust. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor chan. is that a motion?

if it is a motion, will you make a motion to send it as a committee report so it gets to the full board tomorrow where it will not be voted on, but will sit for a week. >> i think is what supervisor melgar once. if that is the case, i'm happy to support it. >> okay. i'll consider that to be a motion to send this charter amendment to the full board of supervisors as a committee report. mr. young, on that motion, a roll call, please. >> on they motion to recommend the matter as a committee report... [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection with supervisor mandelman being absent. >> congratulations, supervisor melgar, a charter amendment is

born. >> thank you, chair peskin and supervisor chan. >> next item, please. >> item three is a charter amendment, third draft to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to extend the ban on the initiation every competition from 6-12 months after the official has a summa office prohibited the submission of a recall petition to the department of elections if a recall election would be required to be held within 12 months of our regularly scheduled election. the office held by the official will be recalled and provide that any interim officers appointed to fill a vacancy created by a recall election held on or after june 7th, 2018 may not be a candidate in the subsequent vacancy election and election to be held on june 7th, 2022. members of the public wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 2-484-744-1504

and then press pound and then pound again. if you haven't already done so, dial star three to line up to speak. >> thank you, mr. young. like the two previous charter amendments, one of which died and one of which was sent onto the full board, this is the third hearing and third draft of this particular charter amendments that has been the subject of extensive public discussions. i will not belabour it, but open it up to public comment. are there any members of the public would like to comment on this charter amendment? >> yes, we are double checking. if you haven't done so, dial star three to be added to the queue. for those in the queue and on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been on muted and you may begin. we have five speakers in line to speak. >> for speaker, please.

>> good morning, it's jordan davis once again. on this charter amendments, i want to begin by telling you a bit about the story. i grew up and spent the early part of my adult life in new jersey and in pennsylvania. i was involved in the politics there. i was pretty politically active. but one thing that they don't have their is recall elections. i 1,000% oppose recall elections but, you know, i don't know if you can just jettison recall from the local level, but i really think that, like the other charter amendments, this is just not adequate. i don't believe the mayor should be appointing to any seat that has been vacant by recall or

vacated for any reason, and i just don't like how this legislation, this charter amendment has been constantly watered down. the mayor has too much power and i'm just going to say that like the building inspection commission charter amendment, i may have to vote no on this if it comes to my ballot because it is too little too late and the whole process of recall its just a way -- it is vested as it is, but it is not something i really want. it is something that is not substantial enough for me to support. thank you. i yieled my time. >> thank you miss davis. next speaker, please. >> hi, good morning. this is michelle. i'm just calling in to say i agree with the previous caller. i agree that this should also be

tabled for a different reason, though. i really oppose this charter amendment. it effectively eliminates the voter's right to recall and the confidence in politicians like you are seeing right now. it could shield an elected official from recalls for over half of their term in the office. meanwhile, they can engage in all kinds of misconduct, be abusive to their colleagues, as we have seen, or the public, for that matter or take other serious missteps, with no voter recourse. that's it. there hasn't been a recall in the ballot in san francisco since 1983. we are not a recall happy society here in san francisco. the problem is not the system. what we are seeing right now, the problem is for politicians who aren't doing their jobs. this feels like just a reaction

to all of that. i encourage you to table this. i oppose it in general. thank you so much. >> next speaker, please. >> eileen bogan, coalition for san francisco speaking on my own behalf in support of the amendment to change election dates to november 8th, 2022. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, veronica beard here again from d2. i oppose this proposed charter amendment. as others have said, effectively eliminates the voter's right to recall grossly incompetent politicians, as others have also mentioned. this is the first year that a

recall has been on the ballot in san francisco since 1983, and i do not think that we should be taking power away from the citizens to keep politicians in check. i ask you, supervisors, please oppose this amendment and do not have it go forward. thank you. >> think you. next speaker -- thank you next speaker. >> how about this, david phil bell. i continue to oppose this proposal. as i said before, i do not question the motives here, i just disagree with the measure at this time. i am not a big fan of recall elections in general, i agree that the this is an important tool in our democracy and it is just not something i think we need to change at this time. thanks for listening. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> we are double checking to see if there are any additional speakers at this time. that was our lack -- last caller

on this matter. >> thank you. public comment is closed on item number 3. before we are joined by supervisor mandelman, good morning, and before we take a vote on whether or not to send this to the full board, i want to thank the cosponsors of this measure. supervisors walton, ronen, preston, melgar, and our colleague on this panel, supervisor chan, for the cosponsorship, and close by saying that any amendment to the charter requires 50% plus one of the voters to vote for it. so if the board sees foot -- sees fit to put this on the ballot, the voters will have the opportunity to weigh in and say yes or no as to whether or not they would like to adopt, what i think is a common sense recall reform measure.

i will reiterate that it seems to me that an elected official should be able to serve one year at the beginning of his or her term, where in the voters can decide whether they have done things that rise to the level of beginning a recall petition. that would not have affected the recall of the district attorney, but we have belaboured those points in previous discussions at this committee. with that, i will turn it over to supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, chair peskin. apologies for being late. we talked a little bit last week about whether or not this should be taking effect in a way that would impact the appointment to the d.a. or not, since it would take effect after november. i seem nothing has happened on that. it is the same as it was,

right? >> last week u.s. that question in last week i answered that question, which was that the charter amendment, as originally drafted would not affect the appointment to the february recalls, but would be effective as of june seventh, and added clarifying language so everybody would know, even though it was already actually the way the city attorney interpreted it, so everyone would know exactly what they were voting on, yes, which would mean that should the district attorney be recalled at the plebiscite on june 7th of 2022, the mayor would have, as she does now, the right and responsibility of appointing the

replacement to that seat, but that appointee would be a chair taker who would not be eligible to run at the next election. that is set forth in there and was always in there, but was even clarified so everyone would understand. >> okay. i am not -- i am still deciding what i ultimately think about this, but i appreciate the clarifications and changes. i certainly wouldn't oppose sending this to the full board. >> with that, i will make a motion to send this to the full board with recommendation, with the caveat that supervisor mandelman may change his mind, and do so as a committee report where it will sit for at least one week. on that motion, mr. clerk, a roll call, please. >> i believe supervisor chan wants to make a comment. >> i'm sorry. i should look at my chat box

more often. supervisor chan, my apologies. >> chair peskin, thank you so much for your leadership on this issue. i on the other hand and feeling that with the recall measure, with the amendment now with the latest version, i have reservations about the latest version of this. and while i will be supporting this to go to the full board for a full vote, i think, at this time, i want to withdraw my cosponsorship and really think really deeply about where we are heading next with this recall measure and having it in the june ballot. >> okay. sounds like we are going to have some fun times talking about this after it leaves committee because we don't get to talk about it while it is in committee except for at committee pursuant to the brown

act. so with two of my colleagues with reservations, down to four cosponsors on the motion to send the item to the full board with recommendation, as a committee report, mr. young, a roll call, please. >> on the motion to recommend has a committee report... [ roll call ] >> the motion passes without objection. >> next item, please. >> chair peskin, would you like me to read four and five together? >> that works. >> item four is a motion to approve the objection of the nomination of nancy hong to the treasury oversight committee. item five is motion approving or rejecting the nomination of janet matz for a term ending

june 17th, 2022 to the treasury oversight committee. >> great. these are nominations by the treasurer and the airport for these two positions. i see we are joined by both of these individuals. both of whom are superlatively qualified for this role. we will start with miss hong and then go to miss mastic. good morning. the floor is yours. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is nancy hong. i submit my application to join the treasury oversight committee. i'm excited about this opportunity. i'm the deputy chief financial officer of the san francisco public utilities commission where i have been for 13 years now. my time with the city is actually longer. i'm reaching 20 years. i'm dating myself by saying that. i have an extensive background in finance and in the private

sector from when i did financial audits and internal audits. my time in the city has been focused on the same things. primarily internal controls and governance, and then also accounting and financial reporting. i love to vladimir and helped children where i can and i'm a big supporter of education and i love all things related to government and finance. think you. >> thank you. are there any questions from committee members for miss hong? seen none, let's go to our next appointee. i apologize if i pronounce your name wrong. >> good morning, chair peskin and members of the committee. i am the chief financial officer of the san francisco international airport. and very much appreciate your consideration of my service to the treasury oversight committee.

just by way of background, i will also date myself, i bring approximately 25 years of experience in governmental leadership and the roles of c.f.o., finance director, and treasurer and have worked with state and local governments, including one of san francisco's own agencies in helping them raise capital for important infrastructure investment. just prior to joining us -- joining s.f.o., i served as c.f.o. for the city of santa rosa and is euros treasury advisor's south asia, central asia and eastern europe. i look forward to having an opportunity to serve an important role in the treasury oversight committee and i would be honoured to serve. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your work and for your willingness to serve. seeing no comments or questions from committee members, let's open items four and five up to public comment.

are there any members of the public would like to comment on any or both of these items? >> yes, members who wish to provide public comment on these items should call (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 2-484-744-1504 and press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. i believe we have six colours on the line with one in line to speak for this matter. >> first speaker, please. >> last time for rules this morning. i apologize that i do not know the appointee, but i do know nancy hong. nancy is a great, longtime city employee with service at the p.u.c. and other places before that. i strongly support her

appointment to the treasury oversight committee. she will do a great job, as she always does. thank you for listening. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public would like to testify on this item? >> we are doing a quick double check. that was the last caller on this matter. >> okay. i will close public comment and make a motion to send items four and five to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> i believe we need to amend to remove award. >> you're right. i have a little note sitting right here on my agenda that says that we need to amend both items in the title and in the body to remove the word "rejecting" and "reject" so that they approve -- or that they are "approve" and are "approving." i will make that amendment on

both items. a roll call, please. >> on the motion to amend and to remove the word rejecting throughout the motion and to recommend. >> thank you for that reminder, mr. young. >> no problem. on that motion... [ roll call ] the motion to amend and recommend is approved without objection. >> great. i will remake the motion to send the twaddle items four and five as amended to the full board with recommendation. on that motion, will roll call, please. >> on the motion to recommend as amended... the motion is

approved without objection. >> okay. next item, please. >> yes, next item on the agenda is number 6, motion ordering submitted to the voters to for an election to be held on june 7th, 2022 and ordinance to amend the police code to require employers to provide public health emergency leave during the public health emergency. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 2-484-744-1504 and press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, dial star three to line up to speak. >> okay. is supervisor mar here? >> yes, i am here. i'm sorry, i am having computer problems this morning so i'm calling in on my iphone. first of all, i want to thank

you, chair peskin for allowing this item to be heard today. over the past few years, we have seen a pandemic ordeal and it is exacerbating some of the greatest injustices we face, racial injustice as the worst of covid has fallen on workers of color who are most likely to work frontline jobs and least able to access healthcare or time off when needed. at our best we have responded to this pandemic with compassion, with solidarity and with bold, new policies to protect one another. among the most important and effective public policy interventions of the last two years has been the expansion of paid leave. no person should have to choose between being able to pay their rent or going to work with a contagious and deadly disease. no parent should have to choose between a paycheck or sending their sick child to school. if we have learned anything over the past two years, i hope it is this.

we are only as healthy as our neighbors, our community members and we are all better off when we can all take care and take the time we need to care for ourselves and our loved ones. and early on in the pandemic, this idea became lost. we saw this on the federal level with the family's first corona virus relief act and then an expansion of paid leave for millions of workers. and where the federal government fell short, by carving out the biggest corporations and leaving their workers from a bowl, we here in san francisco stepped up to close the gap. i wrote the public health emergency leave ordinance and in may of 2020, the board of supervisors passed it unanimously and mayor brady signed it, providing two extra weeks of paid leave to over 200,000 san francisco workers to take care of themselves and their family members. for more than a year we reenacted that emergency

ordinance and kept that crucial safety net in place for as long as we could until we could no longer get legal approval to continue it as an emergency measure. and because of how closely tied public health emergency leave is to our paid sick leave ordinance, which was approved by voters in 2006 and may only be amended by the voters in san francisco who are unable to expand this policy without going to the pallet, which is what brings me here today. we have prepared public health emergency leave as an initiative ordinance to keep this critical safeguard in place for this and future emergencies. we have expanded it because covid-19 isn't the only emergency we face. as climate change presents a direct and immediate public health threat through worsening fire seasons and air quality, if placed on the ballot and improve -- approved by the voters, public health emergency leave will provide two weeks of

additional paid leave during these emergencies automatically. covid-19 has shown too many gaps in the rights and benefits for central workers, and as climate change continues to drive worse and worse fire seasons, public health emergency leave reflects the urgency and gravity of these threats and provides safety and security in the face of them. it covers all city employees and all san francisco employees or private companies with 100 or more employees anywhere in the world. when a local or statewide public health emergency is declared, it would automatically become available to use if you are sick, need to quarantine, need to take care of a family member due to the emergency or if you can't work because of the emergency. and to protect hospital staffing and hospital staff, health workers can use public health emergency leave only when they are sick or need to isolate.

colleagues, we carefully crafted this policy to strike a balance between protecting public health and protecting our businesses, following months of engagement with labor and employers, while legislating the original emergency ordinance, and additional conversations with those five, introducing this initiative ordinance. i do have a set of amendments i'm proposing that i think reflect this balance and clarify the strength the policy. my office distributed these amendments to your staff last week, actually, again, i think this morning they were just distributed. we have discussed these amendments with the chamber of commerce and the golden gate restaurant association and believe they addressed the bulk of the concerns. i just want to quickly summarize the two amendments.

the set of amendments covering two issue areas. first, is the offset. we moved to the operative date to october 1st, 2022 to go into effect when the likely extension of statewide supplemental paid leave ends and we added a provision to explicitly count these hours towards the public health emergency leave requirements. we also added a provision offsetting the leave allocation for other forms of supplemental leave under state or federal mandates. if any future emergency there's a similar substantive leave required by the state or federal government, the hours would count towards public health emergency leaves requirement, as long as they are used for the same purposes and the same emergency. the second issue area is around the air quality emergencies.

and to make the implementation clear for employers and employees and to narrow the use to primacy policy goals of protecting public health for impacted workers, we are simplifying air quality emergency to just be limiting the use of public health emergency leave during those days to employees who worked primarily outdoors and who are members of a vulnerable population. , these are widely communicated and understood, making this much more practical for implementation and ease of use for workers and businesses. we have really narrowly targeted leave use for these days to be a safety net for directly impacted workers. to use this leave during an air quality emergency, you have to be a senior, pregnant, or have a heart or lung condition and you have to work outdoors.

in addition, this law it entirely exempts businesses with fewer than 100 employees. there's no small business that will be impacted by this whatsoever. we have also exempted social enterprise nonprofits. that means any nonprofit where the majority of their annual revenue is program service revenue. it is unrelated business taxable income. for example,, goodwill or ymca. i think these amendments, and with the carveout in exemptions, we carefully negotiated during the month-long drafting process for the original version of this policy. this initiative ordinance strikes the right balance and provides a critical safety net for central workers. if we don't learn the lessons from this emergency to be more prepared for the next one, i sincerely think we will have failed as policymakers. san francisco led the nation

when we created our paid sick leave bond in 2006. and it is time to lead again to protect working people as we face new and existential challenges. i want to thank the entire board and mayor breed for your support for this policy as an emergency measure and i want to think my cosponsors, supervisor chan, ronen, and preston. and i want to thank the deputy city attorney lisa powell and my legislative aide edward right for all of their work on the versions of this policy. all i ask of the committee today is for you to accept these amendments and to continue this item for additional discussion next week. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mar. i think you touched on this in your opening comments, but i just wanted to drill down on it, which is the reason that this cannot be done as a legislative matter by the board of supervisors, as opposed to what

needs to be on the ballot, can you further elucidate? >> yes. the public health emergency leave is an amendment of our paid sick leave ordinance. that was originally adopted or enacted by voters back in 2006. >> got it. it is the position of the city attorney that because it is an amendment, in essence, to what the voters voted on previously, only the voters can amend? is that the position of the city attorney? >> yes, chair peskin. that is the position of the city attorney. >> got it. i get it. does that conflict with the voter mandate or does it -- maybe you can just drill down into that a little bit for me.

>> i don't know that it conflicts with it, but the voters have opined as to -- in the extent to which they in -- they agree how employers should provide leave to compensate for sickness. this reflected an expansion of the voters' choices and requires voter approval. >> , i guess, i mean, i understand when the voters vote on something and the legislative -- and for that matter, the executive branches want to narrow that as being an enrichment of what the voters voted on. for instance, the city attorney's office has held that only the voters can change the formula retail numbers from their current number to a higher number because that would, in essence, dilute what the voters

voted on, but here it is an expansion, it is not a contraction, so can you help us understand why -- how, and i'm totally fine with the voters voting on it again, but how the voters occupy the field in the case of an expansion compared to a contraction. >> supervisor peskin, i love to check in with our consulting attorney -- our drafting attorney. we gave this advice in 2020 when this was originally drafted. i would love to refresh my regulation if she is available to speak to this. if you could take public comment, i could speak to that after public comment. >> absolutely. we will do that. before we do that, would any -- any of my colleagues on the rules committee like to ask any questions?

i'm totally happy to adopt the amendment and continue the item. supervisor chan? >> thank you. i a cosponsor, definitely i am in support of this as a cosponsor to the legislation, i really appreciate what chair peskin is asking. i think it is time to have a serious approach and really think deep and hard about bringing something to the voter and for it to be an upward vote, versus, what can we do with the existing legislative process. i'm just thinking about timing, resources, but most importantly, in my opinion, it is the timing of things. if this is something that can be done legislatively within the existing process and that we can actually have the votes that we need on the board, and have it take place sooner rather than later. i think that would be music to my ears. that is something that i can really support because at the

end of the day, it is really about group public policy and how do we get to that is really optimal. and as soon as we can is my goal as a policymaker. thank you for that question thank you, supervisor chan. you do have the right to remove your name is a cosponsor and reconsider. with that, why don't we can quell we are waiting on the city attorney, open this item up to public comment. are there any members of the public would like to testify on item number 6. >> yes, sorry. my phone started ringing. yes, operations is checking to see if we have any colours in the queue. if you have not already done so, dial star three to be added to the cue. for those already on hold, continue to wait until the

system indicates you have been on muted. we have two callers in line to speak at this time. >> first speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. this is lori thomas calling in from the golden gate restaurant association. i am the executive director and i would ask that we would take some time to consider this. while we do appreciate that supervisor mar's office reached out to speak to us, it was friday afternoon and i literally just received an e-mail with the amendment five minutes ago. we would like some time to consider these amendments. while we are supportive of this, it has been an incredibly painful 24 months, and there has been a lot of cost to restaurants and many small restaurants aren't open yet. i would ask we searcy consider adding the air quality and how that is administered and enforced to this is a real concern in terms of expansion, and also the number of

employees. it only takes two or three small restaurants to get to a total headcount of 100 or more. we ask that you postpone this to take time to look at this and see who will pay for the cost. much like public employees when they have over time because of being out for quarantine, small players have to pay for this. i don't believe there is any off it -- offset. thank you for your consideration. we look forward to working with you on this further. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. it's jordan davis again. i actually want to speak in support of this. i know i haven't been supportive on other items, but i want to support this. there's a lot of existential crises that we have with the way that everything is going, there could be more pandemics in our future. and of course,, climate change is causing a lot of problems as well. this is really, really common

sense rate here. and i'll be happy to vote on it when it comes to the people's ballot, i just want to say, if you don't support this, then you can go fuck the fuck off. >> we are checking our list if there any additional callers. that was our last call her. >> okay. public comment on this item is close at least for today, and with that, supervisor -- let's go to deputy city attorney pearson with regard to the expansion contraction philosophical question, and then back to the committee. go ahead. >> deputy city attorney and pearson. to your question of why this cannot be amended by the board, there two reasons, first, the

uses of the public health emergency leave, in many respects overlaps with the use of sick leave ordinance. we see that as not necessarily in conflict, but there's distinct overlap between the uses of each type of leave. in addition, the sick leave ordinance has a provision saying the board may not change its scope. so when viewed together, we saw this as an expansion of the paid sick leave ordinance, which cannot be done by ordinance. >> gotcha. okay, thank you. that makes sense. any further final words from chief sponsor mar. >> yes. vice chair peskin, i wanted to thank you for raising the question and also supervisor chan about whether or not we could do this legislatively versus as an initiative ordinance and that is certainly something that i and my staff pursued with the city attorney's

office last year, and especially since because, you know, the federal and the state supplemental paid leave requirement expired or ended last fall, as did our local public health emergency leave, and so there was a gap of exactly when we were facing the d.g.o. search, you know, which was very challenging and problematic for workers and employers in our city. anyway, i appreciate the question. again, thank you for your support on this and moving the amendment today and continuing it to next week. >> you bet. thank you, supervisor mar. i will make a motion to adopt the amendments that are before us, that were described by

supervisor mar, and in the same motion, move that we continue the item as amended to our meeting of february 14th. on that motion, or rollcall, please. >> on that motion... [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> okay. the item is continued as amended. why don't we go to our seventh and final item. >> item number 7 is ordinance amending the ministry of coach require residential loan lawyers to allow tenant organizing activities do occur in common areas of the building, requires certain residential loan lawyers direct nice duty established tenant associations, confer in good faith with set associations

and attend some of their meetings upon request, and provide that a landlord's failure to allow organizing activities or comply with their obligations as to tenant associations may support a petition for a rent reduction. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 24847441504. then press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, dial star three to line up to speak. >> thank you, mr. clerk. colleagues, the final item on our agenda this morning is an ordinance that would create a tenant right organized in san francisco buildings, five or more rental units and to protect organizing activities among tenants, a mall all san francisco tenants. i want to thank the cosponsors of this legislation, my colleague on this, supervisor

chan and supervisor ronen, preston and walton. this legislation has developed over an extended period of acute anxiety among residential tenants in san francisco as the covid-19 pandemic has caused an extraordinary amount of rent debt, which our budget and legislative analyst reported is between 147 and $355 million in report from last june prior to the most recent d.g.o. search. there have been a number of other issues we have collectively dealt with over the past year including cleanliness issues in dense residential buildings, issues around allowing nontenants in the buildings and disruptions caused by ongoing construction while people are trying to shelter in place with the my shelter in peace legislation. these issues can be solved two amendments to the law, as we did with the forementioned shelter

and peace legislation. but the spirit of this legislation is to cut through the gaps in communications between tenants and landlords and to try to create a productive framework for communications to take place. and to that end, the legislation before us allows for organized tenants to certify themselves before the rent board and for either landlords or tenants to request meetings on a quarterly basis to discuss habitability issues and other issues to common concerns. it obligates them to engage in discussions in good faith and provides a remedy of the rent board in the form of a decrease in housing services if those discussions don't take place. i want to acknowledge the numerous organizations and advocates who have weighed in on this legislation, which i believe is the strongest tenant organization at the municipal level in the history in the state and country. host of individuals put their heads together and made this a better proposal and a more workable proposal on both the

tenant and the landlord side. i specifically want to thank the san francisco labeller -- labor council for it support of its of this legislation, as well as jobs with justice, the national union of healthcare workers, sei you, the united educators, the american federation of teachers, the workplace aside, no place is more critical to a person's well-being than their place of residence and i appreciate the support of labor and the recognition of the parallels here as we try to create what we have termed a union at home and i will rattle off the other organizations and support here. housing rights committee of san francisco, veritas tenant association, southeast tenant association, dolores street community services, eanes legal referral panel, a photo housing alliance and the asian law caucus. i also want to recognize the san

francisco apartment housing association. they maintain their reservations. i want to thank the members for meeting with my office and offering suggestions to improve it. some of which i am about to offer as amendments. i want to thank my legislative staff, lee hepner for his long work on this piece of legislation. as to the amendment which i have confirmed with council are nonsubstantive and are in front of all of you colleagues at page 2, lines 7-8, amending the definition of landlord to include employees and vested managers at page 2 lines 15-17, clarifying a person's participation or failure to participate in organizing activities shall have no effect on whether that person qualifies as a tenant, and this is to resolve some uncertainties as to the status of subtenants seeking

to participate in organizing activities. at page 4, lines nine through 12 from clarifying language that would reiterate the participation of landlord representatives. with that, if there are any comments from committee members, feel free to make them. if not, we can go to public comment on item number 7. seeing no names on the roster at this time, mr. young, let's open this up for public comment. >> yes, operation is checking to see if there any callers in the queue. please press star three to be added to the cue. for those already on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been on muted and you may begin your comments. we currently have four callers in line to speak. >> for speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. this is molly goldberg.

i'm the director of the san francisco antidisplacement coalition. we are citywide coalition of tenant housing justice groups. we collectively work with thousands of tenants every year. we strongly support the union at home ordinance and we urge the committee to move the legislation to the full board. this has been a challenging couple years for all of it and our counciling clinics are seeing three times the value -- volume of cases that they have ever seen before. we don't expect this to change anytime soon. at the same time, we are seeing that there are too many people who are getting evicted before we reach them. people call us, and in the course of describing the issues they are facing, sure that multiple neighbors have already moved due to the same conditions. as we have witnessed the continuing consolidation of the rental market, out of the hands of small and local baseline lord's and into the control of big real estate investors, this is more and more true. we also know from experience the tenants who addressed these

issues together, whether we talk about habitability concerns, harassment, high-pressure buyout offers, they're significantly more likely to remain in their homes when they address issues together. and when tenants join with their neighbors, enforcing the rights for people, it is more effective. the vulnerable and longtime residents are left -- less likely to fall through the cracks. this essential tool has had the least infrastructure in our laws. we think -- we thanked supervisor peskin for taking the lead on correcting this. today this committee can move this forward so that when tenants exercise the ordinance in the future, they will be empowering themselves and creating one of the best forces capable of correcting the unequal balance of power. we have known for decades that this is true and now it is time to bring it home. thank you. we urge a yes vote today.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, this is nicholas montero. i'm the lead organizer with local 3299 here in san francisco. we represent patient care and service workers at ucsf and uc hastings. i'm calling today to say that we all know and believe the labor unions need better working conditions, higher wages, greater civic engagement because when individuals less power than employer or landlord come together and organize, they empower themselves in our communities in the process here the real estate industry is massive. increasingly dominated by corporations and the demands are capable of negotiating toward stable, secure and affordable housing for our communities, and that forces tenant unions and tenants to lose their right to organize, bargain collectively

and harnessing their living conditions. and on behalf of my union, i urge you to support this legislation and the vision of the union at home. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning to everyone on the board. my name is donna. i am -- [ indiscernible ] -- at ucsf. we all know and believe that unions need better working conditions, higher wages, greater civic engagement, and less inequality. when individuals would less power than employer orlando to have together and empower themselves and communities in the process. the real estate industry is massive. increasingly dominated by corporations and demands that they need to negotiate toward safer, secure and affordable housing for our communities.

tenants deserve the right to organize, to bargain collectively and have a say in their living conditions. on behalf of the union, i urge you to support this legislation and the vision of the union at home. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, jordan davis again. this is yet another piece of legislation, another measure that is quite frustrating for me. as a supportive housing tenant, i don't like the fact that we are being left out of some of the most meaningful provisions in this legislation. i know that, you know, it is a little difficult with the rent board and all that, but the rent board already here's -- there's precedent for the rent board hearing cases involving nonrent-controlled buildings and that is on the uniform visitor policy and s.r.o. hotels which

you should know about. this comes on the heels of me having -- getting a lot of e-mails from someone who runs the supportive housing site complaining about conditions and there's no real oversight. there's no real peace to protect any tenant unions in a t.h.c. building. don't give me that crap that they can do anything because they are under a t.h.c., anyway, i'm also thinking about what is going on in new york city were tenants have won the right, including the right to organize. what concerns me is that, once again, supportive housing tenants are being left out. we deserve to be heard, and just because you support it right now, doesn't mean you can lay on your laurels when it comes to the issue around supportive

housing tenants. we deserve to be fucking and i'm sick and tired of us being carved out. we need to be able to meaningfully organize. there's too many fucking issues in our building. i am just upset about this piece of legislation, even though i support the right of private tenants to organize. thank you. i yield my time. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning. i am in organizer in san francisco. representing the labor community and organizations. we support the right to organize because this legislation will provide tenant power and right to organize for better living conditions. we know that they need the power to collectively bargain for better work in place.

and with record-breaking legislation, tenants could do the same at their homes. i'm urging you to support this legislation and pass it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is debbie. i am a lifelong san franciscan and i live in district three and a proud member of the tenant association. the tenant union for residents. i am honoured to speak on behalf of this and let us urge the committee to move the ordinance forward. there are many reasons why this the vta supports this legislation. those reasons are familiar to all of us. the benefit of a codified process for self organization, the responsibility and duties of landlord as to bargain in good faith, the right of tenant to

elect their own representatives and the dignity of having a say in the decisions affecting our homes. the vta supports this ordinance only for themselves," for all of our renting neighbors with -- who need rights and protections, meet in their lobbies and hallways and organize together around issues of common concern and confer in good faith with their landlords. we are inspired by our neighbors and subsidize buildings who won similar rides in 2,000. at the same time, we are hopeful the ordinance serves as a foundation for a new collective rights in the future, including for our neighbors in nonprofit supportive housing who have said they deserve similar rights as well. i want to thank you all for your consideration today. we are grateful for the opportunity to work with supervisor peskin and the cosponsors on this ordinance. we urge you to do this and we look forward to organizing with our union at home. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i want to thank you for sponsoring the legislation. it is very nice -- it is very innovative and comes out of history that has been very strong, especially in san francisco. both in the labor side and in the tenant side. there has been a great deal of work that has been done to empower tenants to have power over their landlords in the s.r.o. and in wellington, san francisco. it is important to note that. it looks like there could be, you know, limits on the ability to look at the rent that tenants pay. that should be something that should be looked at in the future. the living conditions are something that can be addressed

not as strongly as they could. this legislation is significant and allows tenants outside of the s.r.o. to have say over what their rent and living conditions are. this is essential for people who don't have the same power to set those, as the corporate landlords in san francisco. we know that when workers organize and we are able to improve our working conditions, our wages and benefits and tenants have a lot to gain by working collectively to negotiate with landlords. i want to thank you for your response to this legislation and move forward with a full recommendation for this committee. thank you. >> thank you, john. i am good to hear from you. i hope you are well. next speaker, please. >> we are double checking.

i believe that was our last call or in the queue to speak. >> okay. public comment is closed. if there are no comments from committee members, i would like to make a motion to adopt the offer mentioned and circulated nonsubstantive amendment. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion... [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> and then absent any final comments from's -- from committee members, i would like to make a motion to send the item as amended with recommendation to the full board of supervisors. seeing no comments, roll call. >> on that motion... [ roll call ]

the motion passes without objection. >> we are adjourned.

watching. >> ever wonder about programs the city is working on to make san francisco the best place to live and work we bring shine won our city department and the people making them happy what happened next sf

oh, san francisco known for it's looks at and history and beauty this place arts has it all but it's city government is pretty unique in fact, san francisco city departments are filled with truly initiative programming that turns this way our goal is to create programs that are easily digestable and easy to follow so that our resident can participate in healing the planet with the new take dial initiative they're getting close to zero waste we 2020 and today san francisco is diverting land filled and while those numbers are imperfect not enough.

>> we're sending over 4 hundred thousand tons of waste to the landfill and over the 4 hundred tons 10 thousands are textile and unwanted listen ones doesn't have to be find in the trash. >> i could has are the ones creating the partnerships with the rail kwloth stores putting an in store collection box near the checks stand so customers can bring their used clothes to the store and deposit off. >> textile will be accessible in buildings thought the city and we have goodwill a grant for them to design a textile box especially for families. >> goodwill the well-known

store has been making great strides. >> we grateful to give the items to goodwill it comes from us selling those items in our stores with you that process helps to divert things it from local landfills if the san francisco area. >> and the textile box will take it one step further helping 1230 get to zero waste. >> it brings the donation opportunity to the donor making that as convenient as possible it is one of the solutions to make sure we're capturing all the value in the textiles. >> with the help of good will and other businesses san francisco will eliminate 39 millions tons of landfill next

year and 70 is confident our acts can and will make a great difference. >> we believe that government matters and cities matter what we side in san francisco, california serve as a model phenomenal in our the rest of the country by the world. >> whether you do not to goodwill those unwanted text told us or are sufficient value and the greater community will benefit. >> thanks to sf environment san francisco has over one hundred drop off locations visit recycle damn and thanks for watching join us >> i am so happy. african-americans in the

military from the revolutionary war to the present, even though they have not had the basic civil rights in america. they don't know their history. in the military the most sacrifice as anyone in this country to be willing to lay down your blood and fight. i believe that all african-americans have served because they love this country and the hope that the citizens.

when i shoot chinatown, i

shoot the architecture that people not just events, i shoot what's going on in daily life and everything changes. murals, graffiti, store opening. store closing. the bakery. i shoot anything and everything in chinatown. i shoot daily life. i'm a crazy animal. i'm shooting for fun. that's what i love. >> i'm frank jane. i'm a community photographer for the last i think about 20

years. i joined the chinese historical society. it was a way i could practice my society and i can give the community memories. i've been practicing and get to know everybody and everybody knew me pretty much documenting the history i don't just shoot events. i'm telling a story in whatever photos that i post on facebook, it's just like being there from front to end, i do a good job and i take hundreds and hundreds of photos. and i was specializing in chinese american history. i want to cover what's happening in chinatown. what's happening in my community. i shoot a lot of government officials. i probably have thousands of photos of mayor lee and all the dignitaries. but they treat me like one of

the family members because they see me all the time. they appreciate me. even the local cops, the firemen, you know, i feel at home. i was born in chinese hospital 1954. we grew up dirt poor. our family was lucky to grew up. when i was in junior high, i had a degree in hotel management restaurant. i was working in the restaurant business for probably about 15 years. i started when i was 12 years old. when i got married, my wife had an import business. i figured, the restaurant business, i got tired of it. i said come work for the family business. i said, okay. it's going to be interesting and so interesting i lasted for 30 years.

i'm married i have one daughter. she's a registered nurse. she lives in los angeles now. and two grandsons. we have fun. i got into photography when i was in junior high and high school. shooting cameras. the black and white days, i was able to process my own film. i wasn't really that good because you know color film and processing was expensive and i kind of left it alone for about 30 years. i was doing product photography for advertising. and kind of got back into it. everybody said, oh, digital photography, the year 2000. it was a ghost town in chinatown. i figured it's time to shoot

chinatown store front nobody. everybody on grand avenue. there was not a soul out walking around chinatown. a new asia restaurant, it used to be the biggest restaurant in chinatown. it can hold about a 1,000 people and i had been shooting events there for many years. it turned into a supermarket. and i got in. i shot the supermarket. you know, and its transformation. even the owner of the restaurant the restaurant, it's 50 years old. i said, yeah. it looks awful. history. because i'm shooting history. and it's impressive because it's history because you can't

repeat. it's gone it's gone. >> you stick with her, she'll teach you everything. >> cellphone photography, that's going to be the generation. i think cellphones in the next two, three years, the big cameras are obsolete already. mirrorless camera is going to take over market and the cellphone is going to be better. but nobody's going to archive it. nobody's going to keep good history. everybody's going to take snapshots, but nobody's going to catalog. they don't care. >> i want to see you. >> it's not a keepsake. there's no memories behind it. everybody's sticking in the cloud. they lose it, who cares. but, you know, i care.

>> last september of 2020, i had a minor stroke, and my daughter caught it on zoom. i was having a zoom call for my grand kids. and my daughter and my these little kids said, hey, you sound strange. yeah. i said i'm not able to speak properly. they said what happened. my wife was taking a nap and my daughter, she called home and said he's having a stroke. get him to the hospital. five minutes later, you know, the ambulance came and took me away and i was at i.c.u. for four days. i have hundreds of messages

wishing me get well soon. everybody wished that i'm okay and back to normal. you know, i was up and kicking two weeks after my hospital stay. it was a wake-up call. i needed to get my life in order and try to organize things especially organize my photos. >> probably took two million photos in the last 20 years. i want to donate to an organization that's going to use it. i'm just doing it from the heart. i enjoy doing it to give back to the community. that's the most important. give back to the community. >> it's a lot for the community. >> i was a born hustler. i'm too busy to slow down.

i love what i'm doing. i love to be busy. i go nuts when i'm not doing anything. i'm 67 this year. i figured 70 i'm ready to retire. i'm wishing to train a couple for photographers to take over my place. the younger generation, they have a passion, to document the history because it's going to be forgotten in ten years, 20 years, maybe i will be forgotten when i'm gone in a couple years but i want to be remembered for my work and, you know, photographs will be a

remembrance. i'm frank jane. i'm a community photographer. this is my story. >> when you're not looking, frank's there. he'll snap that and then he'll send me an e-mail or two and they're always the best. >> these are all my p

i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today. >> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do this. it's important to

understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is nice. no rain. beautiful san

francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center so come you're watching san francisco rising. today's special guest is monique gray. >> hi. i'm chris mannis and you're watching san francisco rising. the our guest today is marquise gray. he runs out of the office of the mayor in the city and

county of san francisco. and he's with us today to talk about the recent progress of the sunnidale hope sf housing project. welcome to the show. >> good morning. thank you for having me today. >> let's start by talking about the existing residents of sunnydale and their history. >> so sunnydale was built in the 1940s for a workers. it's the largest public housing community west of the mississippi. it's about 50 acres. pretty huge. about 760 single story units one to four bedrooms. >> i understand it's an ambitious rethinking of the residences. can you briefly describe the scope of the program and hope sf's involvement? >> yeah. the work of hope sf is this idea of more than housing. that acknowledging that our

public housing community, the levels of violence and poverty that are in these communities are not by accident. you know, it's our opportunity to address a system issue, you know, that people need more than housing. they need health services. resources. economic investment opportunities, jobs and things of that nature. and so hope sf strives to work with our city systems to better serve our public housing communities. >> so recently, mayor breed and speaker pelosi toured the site to both put focus on a national housing initiative and also to highlight the completion of the first new building. how many units does it contain and when will people start moving in? >> yeah. it was an amazing event. honored to have the secretary here with us as well in our community. it's 167 units. it's about 75% going back to the original families that currently live on site.

so the replacement. so i did forget to mention i want to say real quick, the beauty of hope sf is housing development, new development without displacements or anti-displacement initiatives. so, for example, the building is 167 units. 75% of those units going to families that have lived there in the community for generationings and the other 25% are tax credit units adding to the affordable housing stock here in san francisco and those units are up and running now. they're leasing them as we speak. people are picking their units each week until they're filled up. >> so was this particular building put on a new plot of land or did people have to move out so it could be constructed? >> that's a good question. our first building was vacant which you may have saw across the street from this building and then this plot of land is the way we kind of do it, we do it in phases. once one goes in, we're able to

move families into the new unit and where they previously were occupying, able to demolish old buildings to build the new. so this area had some older units that were demolished. >> it's impressive that construction has been able to continue during the covid-19 pandemic. can you talk about some of the challenges that needed to be overcome and how the community has managed during the crisis? >> that's a great question. you know, in san francisco, if i understand it correctly, i could be wrong, i believe housing was an essential service. the mayor made a strong commitment early on in the pandemic that we would continue to build housing as housing has been a critical issue in our city. so the housing part hasn't impacted us too much. 67 units have been going on its current time line. the bigger challenge for us was

showing the families in our communities, low income families had the resources we need to survive the pandemic. many of our families didn't have the luxury of working from home, working in the zone and things of that nature. making sure they had access to covid testing and things of that nature. so i want to give a big shout out to our resident leaders, our service providers across all four sites. for those that don't know, hope sf is four sites. sunnydale is one of the four sites. and so across those four sites, the most critical thing was making sure folks in these neighborhoods which have historically have been disconnected from resources have the things that they need to remain healthy, to, you know, survive the pandemic as we all had to survive the pandemic and we did pretty well. we were able to bring back

scenes and covid testing on site. food distribution was happening all throughout the week. wellness services and things of that nature were all happening on site thanks to our resident leaders and our service providers across the sites. >> so, finally, when could we expect the next set of residents to be ready? despite -- i guess we just said covid doesn't have an impact on the schedule. when will the next residences be ready? >> yeah. things are rolling. we have block a3 and block b3 to the building we were referring to earlier. and things are on pace. things are going really well. so we're looking at starting construction spring of 2022 and that will be 170 units and the goal is to have that lease up around 2024. >> well, thank you so much. i really appreciate you coming on the show, mr. gray. thank you for giving us the time today. >> thank you, chris, and i

really appreciate your time as well. >> and that's it with this episode. you've been watching san francisco rising for sfgov tv i'm chris manners. thanks so much for watching.

>> good afternoon, everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the february 7th, 2022 meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm supervisor melgar. chair of the committee joined by the vice chair, supervisor dean preston and supervisor aaron press can. the committee clerk today is erica major, i don't like to take this opportunity to thank the good folks at san francisco government t.v. for staffing this meeting. madame clerk, can you make announcements