>> chair mar: thank you. welcome to the april 28, 2022 public safety and neighborhood services meeting. i want to thank the clerk for staffing this meeting and for sfgovtv. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, i do. the board of supervisors and its committees are now convening hybrid meetings that allow remote public comment. the board recognizes that equitable public access is essential and will be taking public comment as follows. first, public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda. those attending in person will be allowed to speak first, and then, we will take those who are waiting on the telephone line. for those watching either channel 26, 78, or 99 or on

sfgovtv, the public comment number is streaming across the stream. the number is 415-655-0001. once connected, you will enter the meeting i.d., which is 2492-077-7440, then press pound and pound again. when you are connected, you will hear the meeting proceedings but your microphone will be muted and in listening mode only. if you are on the telephone, please remember to during down your t.v. on any of your listening devices. alternatively, you may send

written comments to the board via e-mail at alisa.somero@sfgov.org. you may also send your comments to our office in city hall, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, room 204, san francisco, california, 94102. items acted on today are expected to appear on the may 2, 2022 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> chair mar: thank you. i'd like to make a motion to excuse supervisor haney. madam clerk, can you please call roll. >> clerk: yes. [roll call]

>> clerk: and we do have a quorum. >> chair mar: great. thank you, madam clerk. can you please call item number 1? >> clerk: yes. item 1 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to require the police department to create a community policing plan, c.p.p., at each district police station, that among other strategies incorporates a foot and bike patrol deployment and also includes a community process for eliciting input,

and to require the public posting of the c.p.p.s with a yearly update. members of the public who wish to make public comment, lineup by the curtains or if you are listening remotely, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2492-077-7440, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue, and wait until the system indicates your line has been unmuted before you begin your comments. >> chair mar: thank you. supervisor stefani, at our last committee meeting, you led a very important meeting on sfpd staffing that really highlighted the staffing shortage that we're facing in the department and that's having great impacts on public safety throughout our city. one of the city impacts for me

was the lack of ability for the department to assign officers to more proactive crime prevention and community engaging policing. this is an issue that's been of high importance to me, a need of our city to address our public safety challenges, so this legislation that i've introduced would require the sfpd to have community policing plans for each district station with input from key stakeholders, especially merchant associations, neighborhood groups, and community organizations. i have been working with the department on some -- a set of amendments for this legislation that unfortunately are not quite ready to be introduced today, so i will be moving that we continue this item to the next psns meeting on may 12,

and i'll hold off on my further remarks on this right now. okay. madam clerk, can we go to public comment? >> clerk: yes, we can. at this time, if you would like to make public comment, please lineup at the curtains. i am not seeing any in person, and there's nobody in the queue -- virtual queue. >> chair mar: great. public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair mar: so i'll move that we continue this item to the may 12 psns meeting. madam clerk, can you please call roll. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: thank you. motion passes. >> chair mar: oh, is there public comment on this item? number 1. yeah, we're not at item 2 yet.

yeah. so this can be continued to the may 12 psns meeting. madam clerk, can you please call item number 2? >> clerk: yes. item 2 is a hearing on the san francisco public utilities commission's emergency fighting water system 2050 planning study and the status of the efforts to expand the city's high-pressure fire protection water supply and distribution system to cover all unprotected neighborhoods by 2034 as called for in board of supervisors resolution number 484-19, file number 191029, requesting the sfpuc, fire department, and office of resilience and capital planning to report. >> chair mar: thank you. so this item is really to

continue our public discussion about one of the most -- our city's most important response infrastructure project, which is the emergency firefighting water system to all unprotected neighborhoods in the city. these high-pressure water pipelines are critical to fighting fires, especially after a major earthquake. we know we're going to be having one in the coming years, but the e.f.s. is important to fight fires not related to climate or earthquake events. approximately a third of our city does not have the protection of these

high-pressure water pipelines and are vulnerable to big fires, especially when the next big one hits. so i want to thank the p.u.c., the fire department, and the office of capital planning for their work on developing plans and moving forward with work to expand the efws, particularly on the west side and the southern neighborhoods that remain unprotected. and i also want to thank the dedicated neighborhood leaders that have pushed the city and the departments to address this vulnerable in our neighborhood response system. the purpose of the hearing today is to hear from the departments and particularly the p.u.c. and the lead on the study that they completed last

year on the efws citywide and what that plan would look like and how much it would cost, so we're going to hear a presentation from the p.u.c. and the departments on that. and we're also going to hear a presentation from the advocates that have really been pushing the city and leading on this issue on the community side, and -- and, again, this is really intended just to continue our public discussion and moving forward the important work on expanding the efws citywide. so first, i want to invite john scarpolla from the p.u.c. to present on the recently completed efws 2050 planning study. mr. scarpulla? >> good morning, chair mar. thank you so much for having me

here today and for your leadership on this item. also, good morning to supervisor stefani. i am joined today by colleagues from the p.u.c. as well as from the fire department and office of resilience and capital planning, so they're available to answer any questions that i cannot, and with that, i will jump in. as supervisor mar mentioned, i'm going to talk about the objectives and the development of an emergency water pipeline and water supply sources to all of san francisco, and really to help develop this plan we used studies that we submitted to the board. one was on the neighborhood firefighting water requirements study. we submitted that in june 2021, and the feasibility water

supply that was also submitted to the board in june 2021. so as an overview of the study, what we did was we looked at the existing system, and as supervisor mar pointed out, much of the existing system is located largely in the northeastern part of the city. that's where it was built over 100 years ago, after the 1906 earthquake, and it's focused on the eastern corner. you can see in blue the existing pipelines, and you can see that the west and south and southeast areas of the city don't really have pipelines -- high-pressure emergency firefighting water pipelines. when the p.u.c. started working with the fire department -- when we started working with

the p.u.c. and the fire department, we tackled this issue using the eser bonds. we'll talk about that going forward. one of the things to note is the current system can supply about 80,000 gallons per minute. that's g.p.m. so when you see g.p.m. throughout this presentation, know that that's gallons per minute. when we look at 2020 demands, and that's demands now, 2020, 2022, 2035, 2050, what we're looking at is we actually need about an estimated water supply of 255,000 gallons per minute for fighting fire after our

model earthquake of 7.9 on the san andreas fault. so you can see we've got to go from 88,000 gallons per minute to 255,000 gallons per minute. we're going to do this by additional water sources, increased system capacity, and one of the things to note is this plan assumes fire department resources will increase with the increase in population of san francisco. so i talked about the study we provided in june 2021 to the board. this is a pattern of fire demands throughout san francisco in a 3-d visual. you can see while there are a lot of demands in the northeast, obviously, the richmond, the sunset, and the

stonestown merced park area, you can see there's a lot of lines there, as well. again, this is after the model earthquake 7.8 -- excuse me, 7.9, san andreas. so what are we looking at? coverage and capacity. as you all know and i'll reiterate for the committee and for folks tuning in, the existing pipelines now in the northeast of the city, potable water is the primary water source for it, so the water comes from twin peaks reservoir, and the hetch hetchy water system, that's the water that's primarily used. the large fires that the san

francisco fire department puts out on a routine basis, it's potable water that's used in that system. in the 110 years that the system has been operating, there have been two recorded uses of the secondary water system, which is sea water, in 1983, and in the 1989 earthquake, at around 10:00 p.m. as we know, the 1989 earthquake occurred around 5:30 p.m. we have the additional benefit of after the firefighting is done, after we flush the lines

and reduce the pressure, they are able to provide post earthquake drinking water in areas of the city, and areas that don't have this system won't have this benefits. we need to increase the amount of gallons per minute available, and we need to look at efws improvements. these are valves, pipelines, etc., so you'll see those improvements, as well. so let's start with the pipelines on the map. i'll walk everybody through it. let's start with the gray lines. the gray lines are lines that are already in the street. that's our existing system, what we're looking at. the existing system is the light gray pipelines. in the red is the phase one.

these are funded, and these are funded with the 2020 eser bonds that is just starting to get underway here, which is very exciting, so we are moving forward with this project as we speak, so it's exciting to be able to bring this pipeline to the eastern part of the -- to the western part of the city. the black is in the western part of the city, and it's unfunded. and everything in green we are also proposing to install through this plan, and so these are green and blue, and that's what this lays out, additional pipelines, and those are also unfunded at this time. you see a lot of lines on this

map. let's talk about what they do. on the left of this slide, they connect water sources. to connect to the new and existing pipelines, we need some new lines to do so, so you'll see new pipelines connecting water sources through the city. you'll see some pipelines in the area. we're also putting pipelines in landfill areas which do move quite a lot during earthquakes, and you want to make sure that they're in backbone areas, so you'll see they're in landfill

areas in san francisco. if there was an earthquake, when there was an earthquake, the pressure to these pipelines are increased to support firefighting, and then after the firefighting subsides, again, they provide the public water supplies. this is the same system used in japan, in tokyo. they have the same system where they up the pressure for firefighting, and then after drop it. they're one of the countries in the world that has the seismic

challenges that san francisco has, and they used this system after the 9.0 earthquake, which is significantly larger than the one that we had and the 7.9 model earthquake. on the left, we talked about phase one and two of the west side project. the red is what's funded, and the green is phase two. you saw there was quite a bit of demand in the inner geary corridor, and also to the presidio, like, along the wall in the presidio to provide fire protection there. in the south areas, both the middle south and the -- on the left side and then further south in the southern area, a

significant amount of new pipelines to put fire protect in those areas where firefighting lines are currently lacking. there's a lot of pipelines, and again, it's to make sure we're covered throughout the city. but what's important is we extend pipelines without the water supply. that's a key. you can't expand and expect the same performance in the existing areas if you don't provide additional capacity, additional conveyance, additional pipelines, which is what those water lines do. in this image on the right, what you'll see are all of the blue squares are water sources that are either already connected or funded to be connected, whereas in the pink,

you'll see water sources that we need to -- we are -- the plan proposes to connect. so it's a mix of in-city reservoirs, sea water, lake merced. so it's a diverse array of water sources, and that's important. water diversity is important to make sure that you have a lot of different sources that are available and on-line to fight a really large fire after a post seismic event. other improvements are enhanced -- pefws are data, for example, pressure monitoring with data so we can see it and

make a fix. and reliability improvements throughout the system to existing facilities. so what are the results of this plan that we put together? first, it meets the demands of the report that we put together in 2021, following the demands up to the year 2050. it meets those demands. we want to make sure that the fire department has the water that they need to fight fires, and that's what it does. whenever we do analysis on a water system, through hydraulic monitoring and system response modelling, it's key to the performance. we don't install a system that

performs great on one side of the city and not the other. we want to make sure that it's working all over the system city. the darker the blue, the better the performance, you should note that it's a white square. just mean there's no demands there, and that comes from the

report from a world renowned expert, dr. charles cawthorn. but you can see this system performs, and it meets the fire demands throughout the city in a robust way, so we're really proud of this planning work.

some things to consider when it comes to west side sea water pump stations, one is that plant-well pump stations are likely required. the california ocean plan, which is issued by the state, basically said that the plans state that you cannot install open water intake pump stations in the ocean unless slant-well pump stations are unavailable. basically, ocean beach and the conditions out there, we don't think that we can state that slant-well pump stations are infeasible, so if we can't state that they are infeasible, we can't just jump to a sea water open intake, and that's because open intake pump

stations do have consequences, and we do have marine life out in the ocean, and that's why the california ocean plan is very specific in that. based on the type of capacity that you can pull from the sand, we estimate 9,000 to 10,000 gallons per minute, so that sounds right. based on that, we would need quite a few pump stations on the west side. the west side system provides about 90,000 gallons per minute of water, and so that's the demand that that system feeds, whereas the conventional system needs to feed about 150,000 gallons per minute, so each station requires housing. they can't just be hidden in the sand. they require housing, and i can

show you examples of that. putting anything on the beach is a lengthy permitting process. it's not something that can be done overnight. it can take decades, depending on what we're proposing and where we're proposing. tsunami zones with shifting sand, that needs to be taken into consideration. and another thing is sea water cannot sit in pipes and hydrants due to the corrosive issues. the last thing we need is to open a hydrant and we can't use it due to massive corrosion.

when we need it, we pull the sea water in, we fight the fire, and then immediately, we flush the pipes and the hydrants. on the west side, you would use hetch hetchy system water first, and then in an absolute emergency, post require, then, you use the sea water. i wanted to be clear about that. you can't just have sea water sitting. this is ghirardelli square. fire department headquarters,

that's pump station number one, and it's at fire department headquarters, in the basement. they cannot be hidden in the sand, the pump stations, so we need to keep that in consideration. 90,000 gallons a minute, that's what the demand is for the green lines in this photo post earthquake. we're estimating about ten well stations with collector pipe. it's the yellow pipe connecting to the existing green pipelines at three locations. the emergency water supply backlog function, where we can provide drinking water supply would not be available immediately after an earthquake. it takes a lot longer to clean them after there's been sea

water in them. there's a lot more things in terms of maintenance required. they talked about completing this by 2024. it's about $3.4 billion for the five options, and if we looked

out about 25 years, we're talking about 2.9 billion, 4.4 billion, and 6.1. as you get deeper into the planning, you'll get much more refined numbers. and with that, chair mar and chair stefani, i'm happy to take any questions now or later on in this hearing. >> chair mar: thank you so much, mr. scarpullo, for the presentation and for all of your work, yeah, on this project, and particularly this report that you just presented on for the planning study. i'm going to hold off on questions for now, and i think we should go to the presentation from the community leaders who have been raising the alarm bell on this issue

for years and have been pushing the city to more urgently address this major infrastructure project. so we have nancy warfull and dick morton who are leader from the citywide coalition for efws expansion, and nancy and dick, you have ten minutes for your presentation, and i believe you have some slides that the clerk can run for you. the floor is yours. >> good morning. i am nancy warfull, presenting the views of the 67 retired firefighting experts for unlimited water supply to save san francisco, in addition to my own comments for this meeting. my background includes working as a government fiscal analyst

for ucsf, at san francisco general for 22 years, researching, coordinating, auditing reimbursement programs for the federal, state, and local resources. i've written many ors for the west side observer. i've been appointed by three district 4 supervisors to be their representative for nine years on the firefighting board. the sfpuc has only provided a planning study with no commitment to provide equal protection in all neighborhoods. the mayor has not produced a detailed plan from her executive branch units for the board to consider. valuable time that be spent building needed infrastructure to be completed by 2034 has been wasted because there is no plan. the presentation does not

demonstrate the urgent need for a system. surprisingly, the project stretches out the p.u.c. project to 2050. also, the p.u.c. proposes using potable water for firefighting. there's no plan b if the model is wrong. if not protected now, then none of the progress we might have made by spending $38 billion on projects in the ten-year plan when major parts of the city burns down and the tax base is destroyed. the board should request that the firefighting and water

expansion projects should be included in the top tier of funding with a place holder for the funding. your packet contains a copy of the report on the status of implementing the civil grand jury's recommendation.

even recommendation four to purchase 20 new host tenders indispensable to filling the gaps in fire protection will not be available even though the mayor could have chosen to state that recommendation four will be implemented in the future, but she did not do this. she did not sign the board's unanimously approved resolution. she failed to include efws funding in the plan. she failed to support reasonable actions to protect all the neighborhoods equally with unlimited infrastructure and expanded sea water. there is no plan to include equity to the western and southern areas of the city

comparable with the high pressure water supplies in the eastern and northern areas that they have enjoyed since 1913. are not all lives and businesses equally worthy of the very same fire protection? i ask that you reject the inadequate 2050 report submitted by the p.u.c. i ask that you direct the mayor to direct her departments to develop a fully comprehensive plan to protect the full city and to submit it to the board of supervisors by july 15, 2022. we need a plan b if case all the modelling is not correct. thank you for considering my comments. >> chair mar: thank you, nancy. and dick, did you have some brief remarks? yeah.

>> good morning. my name is dick morton, and i represent a citywide coalition of individuals and groups that want the emergency firefighting water system expanded citywide, not just on the west side, where i live. the emergency firefighting system study done by the p.u.c. does not comply with the board of supervisors request for a comprehensive plan and for funding. if you were grading this in college or something, they would get an f for lack of responsiveness. there's no state of emergency.

they project continuing to work on this after 2050, whereas the usgs believes that we will have a major earthquake before 2043. they have no rationale why they didn't go further. you have to recognize that 80% of the damage following a major earthquake will be fires. i am baffled why the san francisco fire department is not a major advocate and speaking on behalf of getting adequate water citywide. there is a minor notation in the ten year capital plan for a bond in 2027, but it's only for the west side, not citywide.

the city estimates there will be 130 initial fires after a major earthquake, but the study says they will contain the fires within 24 hours, yet 52 fires in 1989 took three days to contain. it does not really give in to the loss of provide residential properties, commercial facilities, lost revenues, the cost to rebuild. it does talk about that they have a significant deficit between existing demand and water supplies they failed to

mention that state water code 73503 requires san francisco to take roughly two thirds of the water out of the three main terminal reservoirs and ship it south. it wasn't spoken of today. it has never been in any documentation. following the big one, the fire department and sfpuc should not rely on sunset reservoir drinking water or other potable sources. the existing 1913, a 2013 grand jury recognized that we have sea water on three sides of this city. it is critical that we actually utilize that unlimited source of water.

the study fails to add the critical ocean beach open water intake. the board of supervisors called for a comprehensive plan and the financing mechanisms. this study fails to provide that. there is no study of the acquisition and the financing of 20 hose tenders, so we can outsmart disaster if it we extend citywide independent the salt water emergency fire system. do not tolerate further delays, do not continue the disastrous mistakes and false starts. the board of supervisors must reject the planning study because it did not comply with

the resolution and provide a comprehensive plan and financing mechanism. we recommend the removal of the efws from the sfpuc and putting it into the city administrator's office. after 11 or 12 years, sfpuc has almost done nothing toward extending the system. we also recommend that we have, for the fall 2022 ballot, a bond to be voted for citywide

efws. we should also have funds to acquire the 20 hose tenders. supervisors, after the big one, there will be an after-action report. this board could be positively memorialized as working toward a rapid expansion of the emergency water firefighting system, while others will be noted for their dereliction of duty, failure to expand citywide. i urge you to look at the article in the chronicle just recently. it may give a flavor of how we

will be seen by future generations. thank you, supervisors. >> chair mar: thank you, dick morton and nancy warfull, for your presentation, and we wouldn't be at this point of discussing what is needed without your efforts, so thank you. i do have some questions, but supervisor stefani, i wanted to see if you might want to ask some. okay. great. so yeah, i had some questions for mr. scarpulla and perhaps the other representatives from the fire department and the office of capital planning that are here. again, thank you for -- for moving ahead on efws expansion. i forgot to mention it in my opening remarks, but i think it

was referenced a number of times in the presentations that this really came about through a resolution that the board of supervisors adopted in 2019 declaring a state of emergency to extend the efws to all unprotected neighborhoods in the city, and it also called on the departments to develop a plan to complete this really important project by 2034. mr. scarpulla, because the board of supervisors set a deadline of 2034 to complete the project, and that was also the recommendation from the civil grand jury, but the sfpuc

presentation and department presentation uses a 2050 timeline. i wonder if you could speak to that. >> thank you, supervisor. john scarpulla. that is the time that we're using is in terms of the system. we're not building a system that's looking at 2034 demands, we're using 2050 as the demands that the system should be sized for. and then, on my slide presented, you can see we have two different build out timelines. we did note that to meet that timeline, we would need additional city resources.

it's a very large project to complete in a 12-year timeline, but we do give a price, and we note this would be the price to do it in 2034, and we give additional resources that would be needed. we give a more realistic timeline, so 2046, in terms of another timeline for building that, and you would see a cost for that. [please stand by]

for all the different contexts. those are laid out in the capital plan so when talking about this level of investment we have to go higher than what we have to necessary for the next 10 years so that's why we have this process of putting together the capital plan and weighing the pros and cons of all the different bonds and proposalsthat are coming forward . those are the discussions we will be havinglater this summer and early fall . the plan will be presented to the board of supervisors march 1 of next year and that will be after extensivediscussions at the capital planning committee . >> thank you director strong

for that helpful update on the next 10 year capital plan where the esw expansion project will be a high priority but it's also good to know that we are not going to be into fully fund this major urgently needed infrastructure project through the 10 year capital plan given what yousaid about the total amount being $1.2 million . that would be available in any of the other urgent priorities that we need to besupported through that as well . my question i guess final follow-up question would be what is it going to take for us to create a financing plan for the esw project where the geo bonds and 10 year capital plan will be a part of it and it's going to require other creative

financing mechanisms as well including looking at adderall infrastructure funding potentially or state funding and other creative ways to financethis . what will it take to call with a financing plan for the efwf project? >> asked me if i'm aware of an revenue sources that can cover thislevel of investment, i'm not . can we come upwith , in developing a plan , it's going to require taking the information we have and having to make decisions aroundhow we prioritize things . it's similar to how we approach how we retrofit buildings in san francisco where our buildingprogram is over he years now we're moving on to

concrete buildings . think as much as i'd love to get with you in five years or even 10 years, we're going to have to have discussions with the community and fire department and puc and other experts around what are the highest priorities that are most important that we can get done and what are some of the other projects that we may need to hold off until we identify or find out the source? i would be a strong advocate and i'm sure o'connors with the fire department and puc would be as well trying to secure federal dollars to do this type of work. so far we've not be six been successful in our discussions with fema for those organizations. they tend to only fund large infrastructureprojects after a disaster has happened .

so getting money from the federal government for this type of program has been challenging . the states, there are dollars that look like they're coming from the state the next year or so. those have been primarily focused on wildfire prevention and they're also talking about sea level rise and climate resilience. so again, i'm happy to follow up with you and follow up with our lobbyists and other folks on approaches likethat . but that's really ... anyway, that would be my response. the only other option we could do and we could spend time out would be looking at if there are ways. are there other sources of funds wehaven't thought about ? utility or taxes, community

districts. there are some of those things and we had discussions that i don't knowthey would fit with this but that would be the only other option i'm aware of . >> thank youdirector strong . i really appreciate you sort of starting to outline what it would take to come up with a real financing plan to get this importantinfrastructure projects completed . with the urgencythat we're calling for and we really need . one final question on these issues is who's really looking at these potential other sources offunding . federal, state and other potentially funding mechanisms? is that something you're doing or is the puc lookinginto this ?

or if not, what would it take to really get our departments to focus in on this and come up with a financing plan? >> i think it's fair to say almost everyone is looking at all the environments that have infrastructure or who needed infrastructure are looking at different ways to fund things . so i do think we're all looking at it. in terms of putting it together for the capital plan, that would be something we could coordinate around. i think to some extent it would be you know, if it's something the board requests we could potentially work with ...

again, these require resources so we don't have a lot of staf . the mayor has legislative people as well so it would be getting those people together and having a discussion and seeing if there's something we can do outsideof the regular capital planning process . >> that's an important next step not to happen as it is urgentlyneeded . we will need the city department to focus in on and work together to come upwith a financing plan . and that's something i'mpushing on and calling for . as soon as possible later this year.

it seems like it's a good time and that as you mentioned we're going to be starting the planning for the next year and capital plan this summer . i did have a just a few other questions around the plan or the outline of the plan as reflected in the planning study.and so the first one is i just find it a little confusing where the outline of the plan talks about the big conventional the fws which is kind of what existing right now with the proposed expansion to that. and then a separate potable esw

>> what kind of aplan is proposing a new start sea water pumping system in bayview, is that correct ? >> not exactly supervisor. it's proposing additional pumping on the east side. it's likely that it will have to be it could be multiple sea water pump stations and it is notnecessarily situated in bayview. we have to find the right location in the east . for placement or placement of the sea water pump stations . >> so the location is not determined but the plan right now does plan for is it one or more pumping stations on eastside? >> it's likely itwould need to be more than one due to the amount of seawater needed on

eastside . >> got it. and again, these would only be used as a backup to the potable water sources in the event of a really major fire incident? >> that's correct supervisor. >> got it. can you explain again why we don't need that on the west side because i think this is one of the key sources of contention with the neighborhood advocates on the west side is that we also need to have that unlimited seawater available in major fire incidents which we know is coming up in the coming years. >> supervisor, the reason is because of late merced. lake merced provides the same

backup the seawater does on eastside. if there was a lake merced on the east side would be we would be happy to go there first but there's not so latemerced with its large volumeprovides disability that if worst-case scenario , huge fire , post seismic , we have to use every good water source and we effectively have to sort pumps on the east side that's when it would be and it hasdays of water that can be provided for firefighting to meet the demand . >> got it, thank you. and then i just had a question around the demand. so there was a separate study done earlier that's also referenced in theplanning study about the 2050 demand . of 255,000 gallons per minute. and so that's more than tripling what the current system was able to provide.

so is that 255,000 gallons per minute demand by 2050 going to be met by potable water sources or does that also, the demand projection also does the plan reject using feed water pump as a source to meet that demand? >> i like asked my colleague meyerson to jump in and answer that. i want to make sure we give the correct answer here. are you on the line andcould you please jump in and answer this question if possible ? >> date meyerson, sfpuc project manager. as john described in the

systems there will be both potable water sources tend seawater sources. in fact on the east side we will have to develop more seawater sources so you're going to have a combination of sources providing the 255,000 gallons per minute . >> thank you. >> i'm looking at one slide about water supply sources. it says there's approximately 60,000 gallons per minute of new sea water supply required for the conventional ef ws. i'm assumingthat's part of the 255,000 demand projection . what is the seawater supply required for the west side or the potable efwf. >> that's 90,000 gallons per minute but we need to meet the demands on the potable.

that can be met through potable supplies combined with lake merced. that's what option one is stating that we can meet those through those sources and those options two and three are othe ways to meet that 90,000 gallons per minute . so it's the same performance for all three options, just different water sources, different costs, different challenges. >> chair: got it. this is helpful just understanding this be complex plan. for the lake merced source that is for the potable efwf on the west side, is that only going to be used in a similar situation as the seawater pumping system for the conventional efws? only in the eye and, probably

after a major earthquake. >> that's correct. >> okay, and then i have one, a few final questions around the host tenders. that was also part of the board of supervisors resolution urging the departments to come up with a plan to acquire what was projected those 20 tenders that are needed as soon as possible because that placed such an important role in the interim until we get the full efws system built out and i know the host tenders are using the fightthat we have on a regular routine basis . so deputy chief o'connor, i

know you're here. if you could talk about what the plan is to acquire the what was requested 20 or so tenders that are needed. i know we havecurrently we have five that are really aging and outdated . >> good morning. deputy chief of the fire department. we're currently in contract for three new tenure with the midpoint of inspection right now with a company called rose and ballard inminnesota . we expect delivery of the first fund by december of this year. from there we will take you on our round of tests to make sure that codes work and we can build two additional ones and then we have funding for two more where we would extend that contract for a total of five new tenders within the next few years. that would bring us up to a total of 10 posts tenders that we currently have.

and then it becomes a little tricky going forward where we don't have the room in our current infrastructure to house an additional 10 tenders. right now we have 64 fire engines and fire trucks for a fleet of 64 apparatus so havin 20 more , their increasing our fleet by third and we just don't have the infrastructure so we have to talkfunding for additional facilities going forward . impossible but along with everything else it requires more resources from the board of supervisors that's where we stand right now with all the spenders. >> thank you deputy chief . when do you expect the five host tenders that arecurrently , we have a budget for it tobe brought online ?>> the first will be online in september and thereafter we're going to build up the next two within three

months of that so by the end of 2022 three we would have three additional ones. and then there would be contracted for two more by 2024 we have five additional ones for a total of 10 posts tenders in our system. >> then what about the five outdated ones that we have right now denmark i believe there over 30 years old . will those continue to be usable until we can bring additional new ones online? >> we've got to not do it but we can keep them in service until we get the total fleet of new ones here. >> i think similar to the bigger project, the full buildout of ef ws we need a financing plan i think for the timeline for the acquisitions as well so i look forward to working with you and nicholson and the department on that because this is also an

extremely urgent project to move forward with to ensure safety and fire response in the unprotected neighborhoods of efws so thank you chief deputy. i don't have anyother questions right now . supervisor stefani.>> thank you chair. i want to thank you for your continued attention to this and the advocates who have been after this for so long. i don't have any questions because you asked them all and i look forward if there's any public comment but again thank you for your continued attention and i know we will continue to focus on and get more answers so thank you. >> want to goto public comment .>> members of the public who wish to speak on this item and are joining us in person shoul

line up to speak now . you do have one person in the chamber. >> thank you, nancy. i wanted to comment on the source of money that's my specialty. we can have a new developer impact fee for supporting the infrastructure forfirefighting as well as the water supply . the puc already has a chart for capacity when you have a new development that is for the connection to having the little low pressure hydrants connected so since they've already established that capacity then we can haveone for the high pressure hydrants .there's a piece of money the planning department and approved an extract from developers and even though they have infrastructure they build within their project they do

not pay a dime to get the water from where it is to them so that's the fee. the second thing is ilike to stress there is no plan b . if anything goes wrong with these plans and thank you supervisor mar for your insightful questions. i want to make sure you understand if anything goes wrong and we don't understand that we have misunderstood the aftershocks etc. and we need to have another source of water out on the west side so there is a continuing need for a thing called unlimited water. we cannot just limit our water to thegallons you've discussed . wehave to have access to all the water wecan need so we don't burn down again . you for this wonderful hearing . >> seeing nobody in person in the chamber those ofyou listening virtually if you

would like to make a public comment at this time please call 415-655-0001 .enter the meeting id of 2492 077744. press pound twice. once connected you can press star three to get into the queue.at this time we have one speaker or sorry, one person listening only in and zero people in the queue. and there's one person on the queue, i apologize.please begin your comment now. >> my name is john. i've lived a couple decades in sunset district 40th and roberto. just a few comments. i saw thought that since we're in a drought it would be nice to have something other than our potable water to fight fires with just on a regular basis before the big

earthquake. also i was wondering if we're going to have enough water in reservoirs here to have our potable water has to be shipped by law to san mateo county and then have a major earthquake. with my service in the navy i'm very well aware of what the puc's concerns arewith corrosion and saltwater . there are ways to mitigate saltwater corrosion. and damage from saltwater. it would be nice to have a dedicated saltwater system. that would not have to be decontaminated. after being used. there's also if we get this

thing built, there may be reductions in our san francisco fire departments iso rating and insurance service organization that has an impact on everyone's insurance which multiplied by all the buildings in san francisco would amount to 1 millions in savings each year for san francisco residents. thank you . >> you for your comments. we havetwo people in the queue . in thevirtual queue . can i please put the color forward. >> good morning supervisor. just want to thank you for bringing and pushing for this really important safety measure for the west side and i'm particularly act obligated

subject. i don't pretend to understand all of it . there's a lot of technical information but i am particularly interested in focused on the host discussion. happy to see more of these will become available so it's going to be a long time for the permanent infrastructure is in place. 2034 is a long ways away. and i know this is more comments than questions but i'd be interested in hearing more from the fire department deputy chief about the type of infrastructure facilities that would be needed to house the 10 additional host as a stopgap an interim measure for projects again that is all about plans. there's nothing on theground yet . that's my question and my input. thank you very much for ensuring that we move forward withprotecting the city from

the next big earthquake . >> next color. >> speaker: my name is erica and i'm in the west side in district 4. thankyou supervisor mar that this is on the agenda . i happen to have heard by accident the grand jury report a few years ago and i've been concerned. so i also don't understand all the technicalities here but i would hope that grant writing would be focused on the fire department on this issue especially with the surplus we now have on the state level and the big money that we hear about on the federal level that we need to get in front of that and hopefully are.

it's possible we are but i wonder if there's a way to push that forward more and in terms of the whole seawater issue í saltwater issue on the west side i'm talking about now. and the approvals by the coastal commissions that will be needed that i heard could take decades. would it be a good idea to put a plan maybe plan g together about the salt, possible saltwater usage and start the process of talking to the coastal commission?because the longer it sets it becomes something that needs to be used or put in the plan. we should start that decades long process soonerrather than later .thank you everybody.

>> thank you for your public comment and for any members of the public. there are no public commenters. >> public comment is closed. i again want to thank all of the community advocates who can bring in the alarm about this issue for years and also the citywide dfw expansion coalition. really they've been pushing us to act with more urgency and thank you to the puc, fire department andoffice of planning for your work on this issue . in response to i think the calls from the community and the board of supervisors to make this a higher priority in our city. that's going to continue to be

one of my top priorities given that the entire district is unprotected and but it's also so important for many other in the entire west side and southeastern neighborhoods in our city. i will be pushing for the creation of a real financing plan. to ensure that we can get the job done by 2034. that's called for and i'llbe following up with the department about that . i will be pushing for a real plan for the tender acquisitions that are necessary in the interim. to protect that unprotected neighborhood from the fws. they haven't seemed adequate on average. and yes, this is obviously going to be a costly expensive project to move forward. it's helpful to have the actual cost projections included in the planning study but i think

we all know that it's going to be even more costly if we don't act with greater urgency to address this major infrastructure project in terms of loss of property and life in our city so thanks again everyone for this hearing and i would like to move that we continue this to the call of the chair. >> on thatmotion to continue this item to the call of the chair .[roll call vote]. >> it will be continued. clerk, any further business. we are adjourned, thank you.

>> low disagree

watch a decision keeping the

portola in 9. i feel that pain of for me, i think that -- almost every choice hit this is threshold of appropriate based on input at hearings except for one the choice of that it is creates the map as it is the most important and essential aspect and the move the tenderloin to d5 from soma. it it is will the reason i -- can see it is not appropriate based on hearings is we had a lot of folk this is is part of a map or the map that i have been working on for weeks and heard folks defends the map itself. it is the legal map. the -- best map but besides the

chairs speech on read before the break in march have not heard anyone here in public comment or on the dias clearly explain why that decision was made and why this choice was made. the central decision of the map and process. the one boost fold head lone of the process. not something i understand and not something i heard explain how this works. to me it is the central choice and not appropriate based on input at public hearings. for me the. come down to the word, appropriate. that is an appropriate change and inappropriate change. it is in the beg your pardon 50% plus one saying one thing or not

99% or 100% saying one thing it is about changes that are necessary and we feel are promote. to me appropriate and to several other members appropriate means what is best for the city and best for the people who need the help the most. it was clear to me and clear about it from the upon beginning from the early conversations in napping. from when we heard from the district 5 hearing and 6 that this was important for the districts. this was an important link with the tenderloin and western and central soma. you know we walk through the tenderloin to get lunch. we work now right here and then and there it is a community that needs the support it can get from government and the work we do here.

i think that it is -- inpresent for us to have start that in favor of any number of other -- choices made and i -- you know the end of the day, if -- there was a justification based on input and hearing anything else i felt comfortable with. may be something i could say, yes, that sucked we went that way but go long with it. it was one thing in match to support it and like, okay, may be we'll hear something and may be someone will come up with a 13 this choice is the best for how to deal with the man. we had weeks and hundreds of opportunity for people to defend that choice and the move of the

tenderloin into 5. i think it is indefensible. i'm voting, no. i do my sense is that the map will paddle and i think that leads us to what the next steps are. and i think this could be a major turning point for this city. i think the -- i don't say this to minimize the trauma and pain of the map. the 11 supervisor district system in the a loose confederation. these are the one body is that is the board of supervisors. it is a body that should be looking out for all of san francisco at all times. we know that is in the how it works and the benefit of having districts is communities and residents have someone to sxaul

go to. i think it it is going to full at this time board of supervisors to legislate like a body. like one voice for san francisco. the fact that viz valsenot with the portola does not mean the 9 supervisors can't work together. and i think it falled on folks like me and the rest of the servants of the city in the day job and capacities to not be reliant and work and proactive working with communities. and working around the disaster and the issues we created with this map. it it is on government to be proactive with the communities that are there even though tenderloin and soma are in two separate districts there is one community and up to the city to

respond to that at this level. supervisor districts is a shorthand for communities is always a fraught issue and we are in the in i bad situation like chicago where everything is based on district lines. we have the opportunity to work outside of that framework. it is up to the board and us to even if the map is [inaudible] we will have issues. for were some communities. it is up to us to over committee issues as well as we can. i think the communes operated separated and haze valley i think it will come to having to

work with multiple supervisors and working beyond that. i hope the board can -- look at it like a body and not respond to the voters but respond to the needs of the city. and i think this is the best direction for us to heel. and i apologize to the city for the way the process has failed. we'll talk about that on the next item. i wanted shed color on why i'm rowing the way i'm voting. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. cooper. mr. jeremy lee. why good morning and to the members of the public. this is it. our final meeting. we started redistricting in mid-september 2021. 7 months we set out a process to

listen to the public and needs of redrawing district lines. in the beginning i know that we all set nought good faith to conduct a press that was fair, consistent and transparent. but -- by today it is my belief this body fell short. if i could chose one word to summarize our process i would describe it as crew. crew not because we had to make tough choice we agenda 've understood that from the beginning it was crew we made hard decisions reversed them and reversed them again did so on multiple occasions. we will time we reversed we did not offer an explanation to the public. did not guide them through our rational. as if we expected the public to

accept this giving them when they wanted and then taking it away was just part of the process. for example. on march 25 the tl and western edition in one district a move no one advocated for. on april second the community responded. heard if 182 speak and ares 2 thirds came out to express spchlt keeping tl in soma together. we voted veterans a map that listened to community input and kept the city's vulnerable neighborhoods together of april fourth we to being this, way. advanced a map that put soma and tl in d5. april 9th i map that again the tl in d five and separated it from soma.

and upon then the heeling map. on april 21st we to being this away again from them and upon put a fractured tenderloin in 5 and soma in 6. within a span of 3 weeks we kept tl and soma together. separated. reunited, separated and reu noticed and separated. and deputy it with the southeast residentsos april 6 we took a 5-4 vote to keep potrero hill whole. april ninth reaffirmed that vote boy a 5 to 4 vote. 30 minutes later that vote was rescinded. again with different numbers in the majority on -- professional

21st this vote was reverse and theed porto pola placed back in 9. this body taken actions that have been cruel to the community. we played a game of keep away with neighborhoods. we could have just made hard decisions onceful spent the time explaining to the public instilling confidence this body has strndzs and applying fairly. instead we incited communities. pitted them against each other. framed redistricting as a zero sum game for one district to benefit another must be harmed. there was no shared 7s pain or sacrifice to keep the communities together. no metric of we hear your need fist. we're sympathetic butt needs are just a bit more severe.

needs for survival and existence out weighing needs around social activity and shopping. when i storied the redistricting process i was committed to keeping the vulnerable communities wholism know this would be a battle but i did in the expect it to be so stacked. i said this previously can will say gwen to the day i question the transparency and access to the body i hope when the final report is released the public can digest and review it. i hope they understand the circumstances behind the actions this body has taken. because of our flawed process. and the monopoly guess against the vast majority of public testimony approximate this body has not apply immediate a standard in the decision make process and the map harms my own communities as a queer person

and voice for china town. i will vote, no. >> thank you. is that member pierce? thank the members who have supported -- and the member up here -- i'm not getting in to how i feel about the map i'm on the record for how painful i think this map is. to people who really need support. and -- i'm on the record for how much i feel this map lacks compassion. i would like to put forward a motion that we vote to approve

or not approve of this map at this time. member pierce for clarity through the chair you would like to have the question be shall the proposed map be approved? >> correct. shall be approved as the moving forward for the next decade district lines for the city. >> you don't to write all that. the question is -- shall the proposed final map be adopted as the final map. >> correct. >> can't hear you. >> if i may, member pierce can we add with the changes made on

april 21st? is in not the proposed map. >> we want to be clear that is when we are voting on. so -- i call the question shall we adopt as the final map the map that was finalized on april 21st. >> 25th. >> yes. >> thank you. why thank you. why do we need to include april 25th. do we nooek need to talk about include in the motion changes made on the 25th? got it, thank you. >> that's included. >> it is included. the last action that the task force took during the mapping discussion on the 25th was you made various adjustments and i requested you make a motion that you accept all of those

adjustments than i were made at that made at that time and became the proposed final map which appear online. they don't need to be incorporated again >> do i have a second? >> i will second that. >> thank you. >> commissioner castillon. >> thank you. chair townsend. so -- something that i will address is -- am something i will address is this decision around the tenderloin to 5 this has been the most challenging piece of the ref districting press as a whole. we entered this with i d6 that was 30% above the population. and we talk about things like whether or not things are zero sum game. the reality is when we rebalance

populations this was going to be the challenge in the entire map. and with district 6 we were hearing 2 overwhelming themes with this district. there were the tenderloin connection with central soma and the communities east cut and south beach. and mission bay. and this created a conundrum. we could not keep everything together within 6. it was not possible to do that. so -- what it boiled down to was how we have to look at the other neighboring districts and understands how their communities of interests map with in coming -- coming to connection with the district 6 areas. within districts 3 the

overwhelming public comment was to be adding more of russian hill. and received 1100 letters from the community around how they would like to be adding more russian hill. i don't take this light low. what we have when with the with public comment is sometimes we -- it is easy to ignore these bulk pieces in which people don't have the time to come to the meetings. we had very long meeting its is very difficult for someone to in here, be in a meeting and speak their peace it is a very daunting challenge. and in many ways it is nerve rack to give public comment. we have received we have received public upon comment on

received many letters and e mails with a very different tone. on -- many of the issues. and something this we did receive a bit of was of we did receive e mails asking for tenderloin to go to 5. and centered around the migration pattern that existed between the fillmore and tenderloin and risen in rentiers this is where i believe this community of enters exist. it is similar pattern of why potrero terrace with the bay vow with hunter's point and sunnydale. they are not exact low connected to each other but there is a community that occurred due to the migration patterns. that is something i -- i see there. and when we have seen with the bulk of comments around the

communitiesmenting it remain together and not seeing narrativementing to go in district 3 that , is where i believe that we are make the right decision on that front. because the reality is, we had to make a decision and when we look at how all the things interact, that is where i had to land. because we cannot -- dismiss the comments coming from a quieter voice. that does in the have the same rhythm and boat to it. that's -- that's why i will vote, yes. on this map. >> thank you. >> mrs. ho.

>> thank you. thank you member castillon. i appreciate all of your comments here and i want to echo that and ensure that i agree. and this is where i land on most of the decisions as well. for one, there is talk about us not listening to the most vulnerable communities. and the reality is there are multiple communities in the city that we have to account for. and -- there were multiple ways that people were ump giving feedback in the form of e mills we received thousands of e mails a week for whoefrn has come to city hall. you understand more than anyone else had it takes to provide 2 minutes of comment you are on

the phone for hours. we than the major of san francisco don't are not capable able to dedicate the time to show up day after day. we do have to account for the voices who sent an e mail. wrote letters. signed letter dps all that is take nothing account. it was not just the loudest voice. all of san francisco was our responsibility to pay attention. back to -- when -- i think it is hard for -- people who are impacted to look at -- the city from a bird's eye view that is something keep as task force members have to account for the domino affects if we moved one block what happen in another. anyone seen us move maps you saw

us do that putting in requiring the hub and central soma 2 miles away. that's how i look at the maps. everything has a domino affect. it is unfortunate hapeople feel unheard or feel like they were were not listen the to and. but we knew as members off the bat we were not going to be able to give everybody when they want. the city is has changed so much in the last 10 years this is a population and number situation. and unfortunately, it got politicized this . is supposed to be boring task force and it it is not entering to move people. it happens once a decade and most people didn't know had we

were doing the first sick months or did in the know we existed. we were working on this stuff. so -- and back to the comments i heard from other members here. just now. that -- yes, i agree this process has been cruel. it is cruel because i think that a lot of upon communities were are mislead to believeingly if than i showed up regular low and loud and persistent that they would get had they wanted. and unfortunately this task force had to look at the map from taking in arc counts the thousands of e mails and hand written signature this is we got as well.

and xhouns that are disenfranchised. i can sleep at night we did the best we could and did kept the most number of communities together as we could. and again. based on public testimony. i wanted answer -- you member cooper about the -- question of why -- tenderloin is with western edition and member castillon said, early on in the process around when we went to 5 there was conversation about the migration pattern between the migration of community from the western edition to the tenderloin. the maps that were submitted address had as well. >> so we can reference this and the public is open to see they

are posted online and look for them. on the other hand we does d in the receive any testimony from the east cut. saying they wanted being in d 3. and nobody in d 3 said than imented east cut in their community. and then it goes become to bisqually how i have been saying from the start. we all agree. the first moves was to cope d11 whole. they showed up and no disagreement. they wanted -- together in d11. we were likeers great that is easy. we can make you all happy. no one is disagreeing. there was no contention or no one in portola said, no we want district 11. no one from the north or west said that. the first move was to keep 11

whole. and we heard from dozens of communities groups in district 3 that said we want to remain whole and u noticed. and again there was no contention. east cut did in the say they wanted be in d3. rush yarn hill was at every meeting and say they want to be in d 3 and gave us the decades of working together. decades of relationships with the rest of the communities in d 3. that was easy. and because of this, you know and -- you pair that with the fact nad6 grew boy 30%. and the neighboring district there is 5. it was a no easy answer for me to say. the footprint of the city needed to move east anyways.

with -- one and 4 growing like need to grow by 8 and a half % and d6 shrinking and d five in the middle. d filed have to change it is in the middle of 2 high areas the footprint had to change. so for all of the reasons that this is why i feel comfortable with this you know -- with that part of the map. it goes become to the public testimony i can refer to and feel good about. you know we talked about reaching out to disenfranchised communities at length from the start. we had communities in china town

going door to door collecting signatures from people had live thered and work there and have small business there is and sign the letters pen paper. no one if you rolize how hard that is. i collected signatures and you have to talk to someone. to get them. to write their name and sign it. to approve of what they -- all told us they wanted d3 together. so -- i think that it is ridiculous that anybody says that we did not listen to community input this is out right flatly -- a lie. and i do want to address you know the cruelty that happened to our community that -- came in to speak the cruelty that happened to us as members as well. the tensions remember really

high. and -- i feel will it did not have to come to such high hostilities. and more painful we live in the most diverse cities in the world. with thes most to the recentlies in the wrldz this we love to tell everybody we have high tolerance. and we are accepting of everybody. and yets in the rooms. i have never seen miles an hour racial crap voiced to each other toward me and my other fellow members. it is i disgrace. for anybody had was part of fanning the racial sling you should be arc shame third degree is in the the accomplice to do it. i don't accept this in my city. i don't accept that in my work

place or anywhere. when well is racism, you call it out. that is our responsibility as citizen on this planet. i can bark on this for a long time but -- i hope that -- we can move forward. and accept this map that is painful to me as well. i feel comfortable with some of the decisions that were made that i have discussed but it it is extremely painful for me to see portola to be disenfranchised by -- racism. and the system is this one

redistricting. they are separated by a freeway, you have kent date to the northern part of the district without acrossing to others. it is the definition of noncontingance y. so -- i hate that i -- this is not the map the perfect map but i would like to see because i think that --think that --y. so -- i hate that i -- this is not the map the perfect map but i would like to see because think that --y. so -- i hate that i -- this is not the map the perfect map but i would like to see because think that -- i accept hard choice modeed be made and we have done the best we could. thank you. [applause]. don't do they understand we have feelings. please don't do that.

i have a guest 2. mr. hernandez-gil? thank you. >> so, begin the fact that there has been a couple of references very specific references to the letters and the 1100 letters that we received from china town i will take the opportunity to read it. i think it is very important for the public it hear this. to the members of the redistricting task force. i was made away the bound easier of d3 may be reconfigured as a result of the census. i'm concerned of had will happen to china town in 10 years. china town, are community of common interested tied by small businesses. they should be included in the updated district 3. in bold letters ooem against the

proposal to add the tenderloin to d 3. combine thanksgiving area with china town would stretch resource thin and strain resources would be arc lued toward neighborhood revitalization and small business. chien town businesses suffered from the pandemic, antiasia hate. crime and property damage adding the tenderloin would add more problems. i fear the tenderloin with problems will spill over to our neighborhood. i emplore your task force to look at the occurrence above as you redraw the lines. english is not my first language i know the difference of should when the letters were coming they say please consider adding rush yen hill. their focus was clearly and in

bold the quest tenderloin in d 3. something we never considered. i feel commolest low comfortable this we could have kept russian hill in 2 whole and gone against these suggestions they said here. so i really don't appreciate and feel it it is a bad faith to misrepresent had the people have been signed. this is i conversation that happened that took place that should be centered and not misrepresented. okay. so i don't want to hear anything about that because we have also heard from many china town resident and organizations of concern of having their vote dillowed by the addition of rush yen hill. they are issues we could have resolved of dealing with conflicting input. but to misrepresent that the letters were about the 1100

signatures is unfair. now i will also add. >> there were multiple letters. >> please. >> this is -- letters 664 out of 1100 or how many we received. if there were other letter this is said something different that's fine out of 684? 684 letters said this. now when i will say is that again, i really i feel amazed that we -- that we have members on the task force saying we never heard from the east cut. i live in the east cut. i voted to name the east cut. i have been a residents of the east cut for 10 years. i along with other people have e mailed with the wellingness to be in district 3. i'm talking about conflicting

input and the selective use of specific input because it furthers and it is convenient. that is incredible low unfair. when you have literally something your task fers who lives in the nishgd and expressed to go there. who spoken for the 30% of the below market rate residents in the east cut and the damage this map disciplinefulil talk more about thap later. i foal that the commencements that i have heard are really astonishing and highlights the brokenness of the system. and why this map does in the represent it.

the next member is mr. chasel lee >> thank you. why thank you. i'm -- i want to -- first agree with the arguments made by member castillon and member ho. and i'm going to probably for the left time on this task force speak about my community. portola visitation valley. members e louded to it. member cooper, thank you for bringing it up and acknowledging. the comments from the community.

we talk about this task force as a whole splitting them. may i remind people that the votes to -- put tenderloin in different districts were done obsit majority. and so -- i must say for the record that people -- all of us -- speak many of us awful us talk about you know communities. there was public testimony and public comment and -- i think we recognize a lot of voice now from public comment. we met a lot of the people.

i speak the high horse looks less impressive from south 280 begin what is the public testimony. we spoke on the issues. -- supported. and -- again i will say perhaps a different process may have had a different outcome. i will speak about -- division. granted the redistricting task force is -- the active joint. it tasked with drawing lines. dividing people. people have ponent to a

different division of that were generated. created. i want to harken back to something i said earlier that -- these divisions have always existed. they were always there. the city is people city government. -- and the people of the city may have known but i will submit this likely very like ly -- that -- our city's gentleman chose not to seat divisions for the longest times. this map did in the create the divisions it exposed us for when we are. that previously maps tapered over the divisions.

that -- they hit them and we pretended not to know they existed. this -- this entire process -- let us see what needs to be fixed in the city. and this in itself i think while we could not resolve the conversations here -- but they are conversations worthwhile to be had. there were comments about -- legacy. um -- not today but previous meetings. i want to address had now. i will spoke for myself.

when i join third degree task forcive said i want to raise the voice of the voiceless. >> what the few people -- in -- any decisionmaking body in the city to come from the communities. i want to lift up their voices. give them in the only lift up voices. lift up their voice and let them be heard in city processes. i think we can safely say that we have heard them loud and clear. we have heard their aspirations and wishes and heard of when they want for their communities and their future. i am proud of that legacy i

sleep knowing that their voices are now -- heard that we can hear their voices but they are now speak up and they will not be silent any longer. my question is. are you listening. do you care. this task force for better or worse said they don't. and that was a decision -- consider 4 times and came out the way it did. i accept that and they understand the outcome for when it is.

will other departments will city bodies listen to them. follow through with them in let them or not -- have a seat for them at the table? is something only time can tell. i'm -- proud to be a part of that legacy i leap and say that on that i will be on the right side of history having lifted up the voices that is my answer to that question. it did in the come about on this map but i'm sure 10 years from now the next task force will have to wrestle with this question again. and for the reasons stated -- before.

and while i'm -- of course, disappointed by the decision with d10 i will vote yes. i believe that as i said during the elections commission meeting -- we were trying to dru a map we could be proud of or the city with work with. we went through each district twice. listen to input and there were a variety. with -- some of the things member ho e louded to, more heatd and -- less present than others there were a lot of gems long the way. we all love our city and of

course have our personal, may weigh things different low. i'm comfortable with a lot of the decisions i have made. i believe they are right for our city. and -- because for those reasons i will vote, yes. for this map. thank you. i am make my comments short. i agree with member castillon. member ho and i thank you, member chasel lee for focusing on the city and the fact we see the marginalized communities. i joined this task force because i grew up without a vote.

and i truly believe that everyone deserves the vote. never in my wildest droll when is we talked about how difficult this was going to be did i ever, ever, ever imagine how difficult this was. i never imagined the hate. the antiasian and antismeltism. the over all racism this came out in i city has member ho said i thought of as more to the aren't than most. idea someone say, you should not sleep well when i spent 8 months of my life trying to make this process work and sated here hour after hour without being able to comment listening to people -- 3

infection, disinformation, conspiracies, personal accusations and sit here and take it. it is traumatic. and nobody should have to go through this. we are is to figure out a better process. on the positive side. i learned so much more about my city that i love. i learned about the portola. member chasel lee to being me through there before we started i did in the know how to pronounce it i'm glad the city knows where the portola is and as you have said we have elevated it. >> i think the board who intrefrd and fanned the flames need to think about when they have done and how they respond to the communities. and to the fairness of the process this we are trying to

do. i think it was shameful. and it was hurtful. the members of the board of supervisors are here to support the community. i think if anything come out of this may be communities can work across districts and work to build i better san francisco. and i -- see the city, too. i hope this with the new map, which i will support -- the board of supervisors the members of this city all the different communities that need assist expectancy there are so many will work together and say. i need help and i will be there and many other people will support them. inspite. i believe in the city. and it is amazing after going i still -- do what i do. where before you -- gets to this

i want to say. i hate to disappoints the call whore wished no sleep limp is in the much chance of us getting sleep after this process is over. i know i will. member pierce? >> i was not going to address this i'm going here. this city has never been tolerant or accepting or inclusive for black people and throughout this process and from the beginning -- we have been the puppets and the wiping cloth, you are hearing divisions and some of them are from me. you are hearing we are underlet and disappearing and pushed out in the decisions affect us

directly. cross this map from d five to 6. to 9, to 10. to 11. it is scare and he painful and people are lashing out because hi are terrified. buzz they are frustrated and they don't have recourse this is in the a tolerant city and this process is less tolerant every month we went forward. i can acknowledge that has been the case for most of us up here. but i'm not hearing anybody else acknowledge that on our side 2 townsend's point nobody is taking the time to look at our perspective and say -- what do the words mean to us? and i have felt word and heard

word this is were violent toward my people that were be littling to my people. and that classed us into the projects with no other recourse or the tenderloin with no other dignity. there is this absolute starting from when we got here. continuing through this process. approximate sense of -- we acknowledge you are there and lawyer this is all we do and can use you as the whipping post and black people have been the whipping post throughout this process as well as being threatened with not continuing to be here throughout this process. that is what the process is doing that is where you are hearing the anger and the

frustration coming from and it is antagonized and patronized. it is very bad the tolerance that you experience we don't experience on a day to day or in these rooms. it is in the there -- and that is the problem. this is why we have the issues. i xham this process stating this the portola was the reasons i agreed to sign up i wanted to see them reu notice exclude i thought what happened 10 years ago was a problem. i came in with this understanding. ive stated that on our first meeting when we came here. the response was talking over me. there is no acknowledgment of

the harm that could public low happen. i acknowledges the harm done to the portool and fight to fix that harm with my nonprofits. there is no acknowledgment of the harm you will do to the black community or the pacific islander communities or the southeast asian community with those moves. if there was a way to do it and we could we would have different it. approximate and i would have signed up. well is no acknowledgment of the hrm it would have done at this time black community -- other than the black community and a handful of white people from potrero who are part of the community. i still to this day say well is no acknowledgment of the harm we are doing to the black community in the tenderloin and central soma.

this is my point. there are racial systemic racial harms that this city has been doing to all of us. there has never been the tolerance for the black communities that you guys seem to believe is there and if you irrelevant continuing is there and you irrelevant continuing is accepting you are instead paying attention. >> you are not paying attention or not trying and i don't know which 21 it is i am so -- so upset and o offend side how tenuous our existence in this city is. it is tenuous.

it is barely there and -- other than the reverend. >> people don't care. i agree. why i'm sorry i have guest 2. that was me y. yea. i do want to say this whenever i hear this is spokes to mow not from the black perspective i don't understand the black perspective not being black but i will say that as the nittive american on this task force when there are lit roll concentration camps in the mission right when 250 years ago that was lunched when the indian extermination act was created back in the 1850s when we had the indian

relocation act of the 50s. i feel i can empathize and have an awareness of the challenges this happened. and there are a handful of us in the city. and it is so -- unseated recommend ramaytush ohlone lan. i did want to talk more about the question of district 6. and we have said it multiactual times we should not take into account the future development it is not a factor for a criteria. when communities are defy fining themselves through growth and development both present and future. i think it would have been permissible for the task force to take into account. it has been clear over the last hour or so of comments that an

opportunity to listen to the voices of people in the communities like myself that focused and centered fair representation and the task force listened to the voices living in the same communities that prioritized relationships. over representtation. i think this the transgenderic and frustrating result new district 6 continues to group many of the city's high density projects together. mission rock is a hub. the transbay development. . 5m. the reality is this guarantees the district will once again with over populate in a couple years. whatever resources d6 is entitleed will have to be spread over more people. it will morse communities to

once again compete and as always has happened tell be the marginalized and poor on the losing side. and because of this district is already covered by special assess am districts that fund cbd's and maintenance it means this resident of 6 will be doubly tax exclude will be under represented. at this point now for the better part of 2 decades. over 10 years had d6 come plains about the growth. this map is the reason why. right. and gwen we could have had this conversation without making development a criteria because the communities were identifying themselves through said growth. we chose to prioritize certain

voices and apparently completely igmore what i said and others in my neighborhood were saying that arc lined with middle east. make it is clear well was a diversity of opinions this was ignored. thank you. >> if is okay for the chair to have a couple of comments on the other hand this process. first as it miss to process. i want to be clear to the public this could in the attends every meeting we did not vote down any signatured processes. we did in the row down -- adopting processes or setting criteria. it did in the come up.

it is was not there because we were -- asked to do it and did in the do it. i wish there were discussion this is brought up from day one it was not. we limped long as best we could. -- but i want this to be clear. of how we -- wentllow this process. now. of as to -- and i made statements already about -- the african-american row and tenderloin to district 5 and all you have remembered that for what who like its or who does not. if i could pig y become on when member pierce had to say and

thank you. i have sat here live nothing this town 55 years. this year. and as i say the sadder part about that is i was an adult when i got here that means i'm very old. but out of 55 years i watched one of the most glorious places i have every seen in my life die. and that's a black community in san francisco. used to be fillmore. now it is the entire black community. gone. the only community or grouch people in san francisco the only ethnic population that is losing people every year. every other population is gaining people. we issue losing.

of it may lead to it and deep pockets of poverty -- in district 5 the fillmore surrounded by affluence that somehow you know -- we know the trickle down don't work. i ain't got wet, yet. so -- to try to do something about that. as misguided you think it is i will not apologize i a nileation. that is where we are. you know -- excuse me. district 10 -- do you know what is coming? when they complete the shipyards

in the next 10 years and the candlestick point development in 10 years? the black community is nut third largest population well tell be the fourth and way behind white issue asian and latino. and fillmore will be gone. we are trying to hang on. you all in 10 years will still be fighting to continue to e merge and grow. we will not be a voice in the wilderness. in it is next discussion in 10 years. you talk about had you have in the heard. i heard it in community i did in the bring it here they did in the come. why didn't than i come? you go to fillmore xu are dealing with the most disappoint exclude lied to community in the country. when you talk about urban remule

and the broken promises. and then you sit here and you talk about being alis and you talk about -- all that -- and people of color this ain't nothing all lives matter to me. when i hear you say temperature the prove of the pudding is not in the eating. folks from d 10 join with 6 and supported everything you wanted against the things i was suggesting and everything else. and the one thing they asked for chase centers d6. and already have oracle p. mission bay. the new hospital. and the new school the general -- schedule this goos. all of those resources they had. and amazon. and they asked for chase center.

and their alis got it for themselves. why since we don't have no more meetings i can keep it role as i want to and i can use the language i want. we talk about hate. and if you don't know enough about mow to know where i am on hate of anybody me telling you now will not convince you. got fbi today and when is the person what does they person who most likely to be the victim of a hate crime in the count row look like tell be a black person i he to brick your heart. we are not the haters we are the hated. and nobody talks about that. i was inviteed i rally on haight and talk about haight on every group of people, lbgtq. jewish, asian hate and no one

mentioned hate against african-americans. this is the city that you are creating. i got her in 67 the summer of love i thought i i doed and gone it heaven. this was i glorious accomplice. i didn't want day to come and didn't want to leave. now it is destroyed and -- and the thing that it is most hurtful we talk about all the comments this we heard. and will y'all know how many hours we sat and listened. ain't nobody talked about the fight of african -- i will be honest. i don't like to think of moiz

myself as naive. i thought it would gent rit i discussion and suggestions or at the least discussing. ain't nobody talked about it a couple of us up here and a now out there and on the phone. and other then and there that, nobody talked about it today. nobody -- came up with any ideas or suggestions. on what we can do with the disappearance of the african-american community in san francisco. i will say it before and again. my fear in 10 years tell be lucky and i don't believe in luck this if there are 12 to intend black people left in 10

years. even today if we showed up on the same day we account in the fill every seat in the park. . and by then -- cooper we will fill up chase center. the fact >> i -- hate -- hate the so many people upset but i will not apologize for it. y'all are trying to grow we are trying to stay here. survive. the idea of thriving has in the crossed our mind in 20 years. how that -- is not a priority for everything that goes on in san francisco. i'm sorry. i don't get it.

i don't mean no harm woeful come from communities who have people who strug and he will i'm with you. in your struggles. but i foal like ain't nobody with me. and being i part of the process has convinced me evermore that as far as black people are concerned san francisco concern black people are inconvenient. i will tell you this and i will be through. i will quit bothering you. people come to me who carry a political tiling that is in the conservative or i think you know. i don't want to -- everybody who believes in this title. but after all -- you got the

board of supervisors presence. president and the mayor and i laughed. you know what -- steve bannon -- and all the white supremacists say in the united states is no longer racist we elected obama. how is that not the same argument that you look at people struggling and dying -- when we talking about -- fentanyl killing people. who you think it is killing. homelessness we are -- almost 50% of the homeless population and we are 3-5% of the population. how is this possible? and we are in the in crisis? you going to sue me because i suggest trying to do something about it.

sue me. so -- it is so much more i will leave it here. dpoept say that -- the districts we had which have been a death nail for the black community. the districts you want to keep have been destroying us all along. we ain't got nothing out of it. that is all right. but how do we get them. because somebody drew them from the beginning they did in the come as a divine right. they were drawn in the beginning and i can tell you when than i drought it the first time when we still had enough black folk in fillmore we could have made a difference we were what you use. gerrymandered. nobody had a problem with it but us. like nobody has a problem with

where we are now but us. i will -- yea i will vote for this. is this the way i would have like today. hell no. i would have likeed have done much more. i will vote for it. i will vote for it understanding that if i could have done more i would have. i hope some day we will understand the importance. not trito create safe district it is for safe political persuasions and go become to or go to districts where you got a lot of different people in it and the people who desire to represent those districts will have to go out and talk to the

people and create platforms and planks on the platform this is speak to the people's need and not >> i can do when i want because my district is safe. i am so old that i remember my grand parents and parents and my neighbors and the people at my church debating over who had the best civil rights planks the republicans or dem credits. and politicians had to try to sell their program to people not know they got i safe district so i can do what i want. and if y'all don't get, way with that we will never start talking to each other again. >> we'll not stop give and taking again. which is the idea of politics. we got get out of this nonsense of not talking to the people. not addressing the hope and

desires of the people that's all of the people. the people that don't agree have a right to exist in this town with everything the world has to offer. they are not guilty lesser humans because than i disagree with me or may carry a different playical persuasion. i that are not lesser. than i am buzz they are arab yen latino. mr. gil when you walk down the street you are black. you know this. >> i'm saying -- these other things that people are dealing with. on a daily bases. they are not playing politics. they are in the trying to grab the greatest progressive or mod rit strategy. that's for us to play in the

game and what people are trying to live and survive. and will they want the same things. the i decent place to live. a way to make an income. niches they can get along with and laugh and joke and share with from time to time. that's what people want. decent sxejz a vacation every now and then. that's all. anything this denies them that is in the worth discussing i leave you with that i'm sorry to take up so much time. but those of you who think we made the decisions cavalier ly and made the decisions because the dwerpts were calling us and telling us what to do.

that is an okay response but it is so damn lazy. that's a lazy response. to say everything we said up here that developers or supervisors i don't think this of my colleagues. i can say this and we everybody know we ain't going to agree on the final vote we ain't agreed on anything up here. oi don't think anybody up here took this job light ly and not any point not making a decision based on what they think is best for san francisco. i may think they are wrong. but i know they don't think they are writtening or they would not have done it. so you all -- tell your friends that the -- not worry about the outcome but i'm proud of the work that these people did and i

am proud of the people and honored served with them. and made good friends for the 40 hol be allis and talk and continue to talk y'all gotta talk. some of y'all joined -- lib service it other communities this you never talked to null got in the rooms and saw how you could use each other to get to us. but had no conversations before you got here. we will not survive and one of the things that -- i hope this is the last thing i will say. you organizers in the tenderloin, i hope you can removeow upset you are -- and look at the deep pockets of poverty in d 5 and help them out. because our organizations in

the -- black organization in d5 don't get fund like y'all do like your organizations do in the tenderloin to work with poor people. we are struggling trying to provide service. i hope upon -- that you can bring back to our communities as well. thank you, for your time i apologize again. ladies and gentlemen, i see mr. castillon in the queue. i want to thank you for your leadership. it has been incredible working with you. i will not follow your conversation than i got the heart of everything we have been accomplishing. i would like to call the question. >> i have no one. >> i can wait.

>> please. >> motion was offered by member pierce and seconded by castillon. shall the proposed map adopted that being the map incorporating the adjustments on april 25 yes thinks you should be adopted. il call the role. member lee. >> no. >> member pierce. >> no. >> reiner >> aye. >> member castillon. >> aye. why member cooper. >> no. >> member hernandez-gil. why no >> member ho. why aye. >> member chasel lee >> aye >> townsend. >> aye. >> there are five ayes and 4 no's lee, pierce, cooper and gil in decent. >> thank you. the motion the final draft map is passed.

mr. clerk. i think there are members of task force. >> i'm sorry. >> i'm sorry. >> guest one mr. cooper. why thank you. i want it say thank you chair townsend for the speech and want to apologize i may have taken the 14th amendment too furious ly and i, voided tucking about race but have been thinking about, lot and i hope to connect with you and w with you on this process after this process on bodiesing black voices and building black purin the communities and in the new district 5 in district 6 and 10. and -- irrelevant hope to w on that. i think it is something had a lot of the issues you talked about from redistricts the

solutions will be beyond when we talked about today. i have technical questions to follow up. what is for the clerk -- the new lines are they legal as of of 75 seconds ago or not until. this is a selfish question who someone when guess become to tomorrow or today and mark things with when district they are in. do the lines become legal now or until you update or someone updates it on the charter to reflect the lines? >> thank you. new lines are effective today. so that does in the mean that any current supervisor has to unseat just means they are effective when the task force adopts the final map which you

just did. why okay. thank you. >> and then this is something i will follow up with in writing the hardest things to finds was a monopoly of the supervisor districts. you google it the first page is new supervisor district its is from 2002. an ask to the clerk's office to make sure we have a map of the line come the easy solution is to use the map here what we have. take out the draft map and left years rename it and let that live for 10 years. it has been a problem and for the work of the employees have to reference that every day.

we would appreciate that as well. >> thanks. >> i'm sorry. guest 2. member pierce. i would when we are done with this agenda item i would like to request a 10 minute recess. why i think this is i good idea. >> mr. chasel lee? >> thank you. perhaps i agree with member pierce to extend this we could have a longer lunch break instead. why fine. >> yes. i think that is fine. though -- keep are 2 more items is there anybody else? so why don't we take a 30 machine break now. it is 1:01. >> we come back no sooner than 1. . 30. is it 1 p.m. already.

why yea >> 1:30 is fine >> thank you, mr. chair. drop the gavel on the recess. we are in recess. clear clear