>> good morning and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, june 13. i am the chair of the committee aaron peskin joined by vice chair mandelman and shortly by

supervisor connie chan. our clerk is mr. victor young. mr. young, do you have any announcements? >> yes. the board of supervisors and the committees are convening hybrid meetings that allow in-person attendance and public comment while providing public comment via telephone. equitable public access is essential and will be taking comment as follows. the first will be taken on each item on the agenda. those attending in person will go first and then those waiting on the phone line. for those watching channel 26, 78, or 99 and sfgov.org, the public call-in number is streaming. it is 415-655-0001, and enter the meeting i.d. of 249-1326 8157 and then pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion but will be connect and in listening mode only. when the item of interest comes

up, those joining us in person should line up to speak and those on the telephone line should dial star 33 to be added to the speaker line. if you are on your telephone, please remember to turn down your tv and listening devices you may be using. as indicated, we will take public comment for those attending in-person first and then move to public comment telephone line. you may writ in writing by emailing to the rules committee clerk. and submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and included in the file. you may send your written comment to the office at our offices at city hall. that concludes the initial comments. >> supervisor mandelman, in order to accommodate the tight

schedules of certain individuals or individual, mr. clerk, could you please call items 3, 4, and 5 out of order. >> yes. item three is a motion to approve and direct the shesh treasurer's nomination of nancy horn. and item four is appointing or rejecting the treasurer's nomination of meghan wallace. item five is a motion approving or rejecting the treasurer's nomination of ben rosenfield for a term ending june 17, 2026, to the treasury oversight committee. >> thank you, mr. young. colleagues, these are all re-appointments as nominated by the treasurer, tax collector, jose cisneros for continuation

on the treasury oversight committee. if there are no questions, let's go to meghan wallace and nan nay hom. mr. rosenfield has agreed to continue his role on the board and is not available this morning, but i don't think we need to interview him this morn. with that, ms. wallace f you have any words to share, thank you for your willingness to continue serving on the treasury oversight committee. you are obviously absolutely qualified, ms. wallace. >> good morning. thank you to the committee for having me here this morning to be considered for a second term on the treasury oversight committee. as the chief financial officer of the san francisco unified school district which is one of the largest participants in the treasury pool, i have a distinct interest in assuring that the pool is managed effectively. i believe that i am uniquely suited to serve on the committee

due to my over 15 years of experience working in the areas of finance and administration. primarily here within the city and county of san francisco. finally, just as a resident of the beautiful city and parent of two public school children, i am keenly aware of how important it is to careful l imagine the public funds that serve our city's service and infrastructure. i would be honored to serve a second term on the treasury oversight committee. thank you for your consideration today. i am happy to answer any questions you may have of me. >> thank you, ms. wallace. thank you for your willingness to continue serving and for all of your good work at the san francisco unified school district and the city and county of san francisco. let's move on to ms. hom. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is nancy hom, the deputy chief financial officer at the san francisco public utilities commission.

thank you for considering me for this appointment at the treasury committee. i am passionate about the work in finance and internal control. and i also have a passion for finance and accounting. and so i feel that i am qualified for the role. i also serve on the treasury oversight committee and appreciate your consideration today. i have two children, one is in college right now and one is about to start middle school. when it comes to the city and what it provides for the residents and what we do as public servants, i am there for our department. thank you for considering my application. >> thank you, ms. hom. thank you for your willingness to serve and for your service to the city and county of san francisco and our public utilities commission. is there any public comment on items 3, 4, or 5? >> yes, member of the public who

wish to speak on these items and are joining us to speak should line up to speak along the win dose. for those listening remotely, call 415-655-0001 and meeting i.d. 2491 326 8157 and press pound and pound again. once connected, press star 3 to enter the speaker line. for those already in the queue, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and that will be your cue to begin your comment. there is nobody in line to speak in the hearing room and we have one caller on the line for public comment. >> first speaker please. >> can you hear me okay this morning? >> please proceed. >> day did pilpal. i have no objection and in fact, i support the three appointees, ben rosenfield, meghan wallace and nancy hom. i just had some clerical

concerns, some of which i communicated on friday to the clerk's office on page six of the committee packet, for example, on item -- sorry, the file ending in 0660. which is item five. that chart shows ben rosenfield as currently holding a seat with the term ending 6/17/26. i believe that is incorrect. and the current term that he is serving ends 6/17/22. the proposed motion would confirm that to another four-year term. i believe meghan wallace should be in seat two representing the county superintendent of schools and not the sfccd. and i believe meghan was misspelled and nancy hom is

correct in seat number four. again, i support all three appointees and look forward to their continued service on the treasury oversight committee. thanks for listening. >> public comment is now closed. >> okay. i would, colleagues, like to make a motion to amend all three motions by removing in the long title the word reject and at line three and at line 17 in the moved clause, remove the word reject. i note that the subject resolution for ms. wallace has the name spelled correctly in the resolution. on that motion, a roll call to amend all three items to have them only read approving and approves. a roll call please. [roll call vote]

>> the motion passes without objection. >> i will motor vehicle a motion to be send all three items with recommendation to the board of supervisors. roll call please. >> yes, on that motion. supervisor chan. >> yay. >> chan, aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> mandelman, aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> peskin, aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> please read items 1 and 2 together. >> item 1 is a motion approving/rejecting the mayor's nomination for reappointment of william adams to the port commission for a term ending may 1, 2026. and item 2, the mayor's nomination for reappointment to gail gilman to the port commission for a term ending may 1, 2026. >> mr. adam, president of the port commission, good morning. thank you for taking the time to have a cup of coffee with me earlier today, and the floor is yours, sir.

>> thanks, chair peskin, vice chair mandelman, supervisor chan. i am willy adams, president of the international longshore and warehouse union a43-member of the most militant, progressive union in this country. i was first appointed to the port commission by the late mayor edwin lee in 2012, and i want to thank mayor breed for the continued support and nomination for the reappointment. i just want to say that i understand the history of labor and i have to depend on all my commissioners, the port directors, staff, to get things done. and the good thing about me when i come to you today, i'm a street fighter for the working class and the oppressed. i'm not running for no political office. this is no steppingstone for me. for the last 10 years i have continued to work diligently with my fellow commissioners to do all we could to continue to make the port of san francisco a

beacon of light. i remember i was there for the open of the exploratory, the opening of the cruise ship terminal, and it is nice to know that the james r. herman cruise terminal is named after our second president of our union, james r. herman. the crane cold park and dog patch and we're preparing in the future for climate change, seismic risk, sea level risk and with our own waterfront resilience program. we have increased water transportation with water ferries and water taxis. i think it's so important, especially down the embarcadero. i live in that area. i run down there every morning. we would like to see san francisco get back up to 30 million tourists a year. it is so important because our city is going through a transformation. we had to take some tough votes. the embarcadero navigation center. it was tough. i had to chair that meeting. the chair wasn't there.

and we probably had 300 people there. we had about 40, 50 officers there. i had never been in the meeting in the community. i lived in that community. i tell you, it was one of the toughest votes i had to make, but it was the right thing to do. these jobs, like you do, it is not about being popular. you have to do what's right for the city and the county and the residents of san francisco. and we have to balance business with having compassion. we see the mental health, we see a lot of things happening in our city. i was proud that we had the largest testing center for covid at piers 30, 32, and i am really proud of the rent forgiveness that we have for our tenants and the emergency loans to the lebs during this time of covid. i had never been through anything like covid before but the resilience of the port under the direction, leadership of elaine forbes and the five commissioner, we held firm.

we were fast. spent a lot of time in washington, d.c. and sacramento lobbying for funds so we could stay afloat. the port is the life blood of the economy. i look forward to the new waterfront here in san francisco and the port is crucial to the recovery of the san francisco economic recovery. i think our diverse portfolio, businesses, restaurants, retail, maritime, and tech industries. and with that being said, i am here to answer any questions. as i said, for 10 years, i kind of feel like being a part of the heart and soul of the port. i live down there. i'm invested. i want to continue to see san francisco be that beacon of light on the hill and i'll never forget the late ed lee who gave me an opportunity to serve and

being the president of the iow, i have all the ports up and down the west coast right now. we are in major negotiations with the major shipping companies, and i know what my commitment is. and i'll continue to answer the bell. >> good luck on the negotiations. thank you for your willingness to serve. supervisor chab channel. >> thank you, chair peskin. i want to apologize, commissioner adams, that i didn't get a chance to return the call with the voice message you left me. thank you so much for your service and your commitment to be willing to continue to serve. in fact, you have been in longshore worker since 1978 which is the year i was born, so it means that you have been doing this for 43-something years. and so i just want to thank you and today i am definitely wholeheartedly supporting your reappointment. i want to thank you for that and let you know that i am very supportive of you and your work and thank you so much for representing the workers at the

critical waterfront for san francisco. we definitely need that. thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. why don't we go to your colleague, commissioner gail gilman who has been nominated for another term. commissioner gilman, the floor is yours. >> good morning, chair peskin, vice chair mandelman, and supervisor chan. i am so humbled and honored to be before you today for reappointment to the port commission. my appointment began actually prior to mayor lee passing and then mayor ferrell went through with the promise to build from the department of building inspection to the port. i live in north beach a stone's throw from the waterfront. i hear the sea lions at night and frequent particularly the northeast sector of the waterfront. the first four years have been a learning curve as newest member of the commission. we are a complex enterprise department that has stepped up to the plate both during covid

and prior. we have major redevelopment still coming to the port with our historic piers and our development at piers 30/32. i have been championing for equity as a commissioner and for the everyday people of san francisco. i have blended well and worked collaboratively with my fellow commissioner, and i am very proud to serve on the equity working group for the port to ensure that our equity and diversity plan for our employees, our businesses, are really at the forefront of promoting equity for all. our 30 million visitors to the waterfront are critical, but i also believe that enhancing our waterfront so the historic neighborhoods that border it, chinatown, north beach, dog patch, and -- sorry -- and bayview, have their residents come to the waterfront whether that's at crane cove park or having the children go to the exploratory. i think the waterfront needs to be a place of commerce and

business for all. i really hope that you will support my nomination. i submitted letters to each and every one of you and i have two letters that i hope are in the pack fret the chinese chamber, fisherman's wharf cbd and while they may not be able to testify today t teamsters and local 3 wanted me to let you know they support my nomination. if you have any questions for me, i am here to answer them and i am humbled to be before you. >> i don't see any questions from committee members, neighbor. and thank you for riding that learning kefsh and being willing to serve for another tour of duty. with, that let's go to public comment on items one and two. are there any members in the public who would like to speak on these items? seeing none, are there any remote speakers? >> for those listening remotely, call 415-655-0001, and enter the meeting i.d. of 2491 326 8157. and press pound and pound again.

once connected you will need to press star 3 to enter the speaker line. for those already in the queue, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmute and that will be your cue to we gin. we currently have six callers and one in line to speak. >> first speaker please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. mark gleason here speaking on behalf of the executive board of teamsters 665 in san francisco. we want to add our voice with others in appreciating, first of all, commissioners adams and gilman for all their service for working women and men here in san francisco. and wholly support their reappointment of willy adams and gail gilman to the port commission going forward, and we thank you for your time. >> thank you, mr. gleason. >> are there any other speakers for items one or two?

>> that completes our list of public commenters on the phone. >> public comment is closed. i will make a motion to amend both motions by taking out the word rejecting in the long title at line three and the word rejects in the move clause at line seven. on that motion a roll call please. >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> and then i will make a motion to send both items as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation. on that motion, roll call. >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without objection. four more years of fun, congratulations. could you read item 6 and 7 together?

>> item 6 is an ordinance adopting and implementing an amendment to the current memorandums of understanding and collective bargaining agreements between the city and county of san francisco and each of the unions identified in appendix a, providing for the carry forward for fiscal year 2022-2023 of an additional 80 hours of accrued floating holidays, accrued in lieu holidays and waiving the 120 hour limb on number of hours the compensatory z designated employee cans carry forward under the memorandum with local 21. the amendment is to be effective june 30, 2022. item 7 is ordinance adopting and implementing the memorandum of understanding between the city and county of san francisco and service employees international union local 1021 staff and per diem nurses to be effective july 1. i believe there is a request the matters be referred out the as committee reports. >> that is correct.

and good morning, supervisor. >> that is it. artis graham here. here with the rest of your team. these are interesting in so far as they were at the government audit and oversight committee and would not normally come to the rules committee except for the very tight charter mandated deadlines which is why they are here today as amended by the government audit and oversight committee. and mr. graham, the floor for items six and seven are before us. the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, chair. and members of the board of supervisors. i just wanted to, first on item 6 just address any questions you may have. so that is kind of -- i don't have prepared remarks for item 6. we are just here available to answer any questions. for item 7, which is the renewal of the r.n. contract, we are very excited about that. this represents the last of our significant contracts. as you know, r.n.s do not have

the same deadlines as the other contracts. also, as you know, the r.n.s do not have an arbitration proceeding. we just had to negotiate until 5:00 in the morning until we reached a resolution. we were able to accomplish that. i will give you a brief overview of where the contract is and significant changes in the contract. like the other contracts with the city, we agreed to a 5.25 annual wage increase as well as effective july 1. and then on january 1, 2023, a 2.5 wage increase of on june 30 of the same year they will receive a 2.25 wage increase. this is a two-year agreement. in addition, we made some changes to the steps and the way the steps align in order to address the wages and gave a step increase for steps three

through five. and six through nine. and the purpose of those step increases were to help aid with retention in those areas where we see a lot of nurses leave the agency and encourage them to stay with the department. in addition, we agreed to try to address some staffing shortfalls through bargaining by adding approximately 55 new f.t.e.s, mostly to ensure break relief as well as to help support some additional new services that are within the department they rant to provide. lastly, and i am speaking for the actions of the department, which is the department has been very assertive in trying to hire new nurses this year. they believe they are on pace to either hire or issue offer letters to over 140 nurses by july 1 and this is to help

support any staffing shortfalls they currently have. so the members of the board have any additional questions about that, i am happy to address that. >> not inexpensive, but it is what the market commands. and we have been briefed a about this repeatedly in closed session. and i understand item 6 and is accrued in lieu holidays and the waiving of the 120 hour limit. are there any questions from committee member. supervisor chan. >> thank you, chair peskin. i am not sure if you actually answered this question. earlier this year the board actually approved a contract dollar amount close to almost $85 million for registered nurses that allow us to just on a temporary basis. how is this m.o.u. now that we have come to an agreement impacting that contract? do we know an answer to that?

>> supervisor, yeah, i am not aware of any impact this m.o.u. would have on that contract. that is more of a question for the department i think to answer. >> okay. thank you. >> all right. why don't we open items -- anything you want to add? all right. that may be a yes. that looks like a yes. >> supervisors, i guess it goes without saying that we are urging a positive recommendation to the full board and just to let you know, give you a flavor for the bargaining table itself, our registered nurses obviously have been very much front line workers and cover the gambit of issues from street medicine to work in the hospital to working at laguna honda hospital in the

behavioral and public health clinics. there's a national shortage of them. we're working diligently with the department to attract new nurses and help sciu, help the lvns become registered nurses. so there are various strategies and this successor m.o.u. puts emphasis on staffing in kilocations that the union and department of public health are most concerned about. it keeps the wages competitive to do better than some private sector. not quite as good as stanford. we read about that, but in terms of competitive health hospitals, we are competitive and this wage package allows us to stay that way. we appreciate your support. and we'll be at the full board

once you pass this out. thank you. >> two separate meetings for the two separate items, but yes, and thank you for giving us that flavor. mr. clerk, why don't we open items six and seven to public comment. >> yes. members of the public wish to provide public comment on this item and joining us in person should line up to speak alongside of the room by the windows. for those listening remotely, call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2491 326 spt 8157 and pound and pound again. press star 3 and wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. there is nobody in the room at this time for public comment. and we have one caller on the line for public comment. >> first speaker please. >> once again, david pillpal.

i have no issue with item 7 with the nurses m.o.u. and my concern about item six is the timing with why that was referred to the committee today. and i am sure that somebody smarter than me can explain that to me offline. i appreciate the controller's analysis in the file dated june 1 which explained the m.o.u.s and inexclusiving this citywide amendment. and i also wanted to take a moment to appreciate carol eisen and artis graham and the entire team on their side and union negotiators and representatives and the city controller's office

and others who may have been involved in leading these relatively historic negotiations resulting in a large wage increase to address the current labor market to the benefit of the employees, the city, and its residents. thank you so everyone and thanks for listening. >> see nothing other members of the public on item 6 or 7, public comment is closed. colleagues, if there is no objection, i will make a motion to send with recommendation item number 6, file 220598 to the board of supervisors with recommendation as a committee report for consideration tomorrow, june 14, and make and add to that motion sending file 7 and with recommendation as a committee report to our special board meeting of june 222.

on that motion a roll call please. >> yes. just to clarify, on item 7, 2206-696. i just had discussion with the deputy city attorney pearson. i don't believe that needs to go out as a committee report, but it does go to the exact same date for june 22 -- >> right. because we don't have a meeting on the 21st so it would land on the 22nd. regardless of what is published here which says that i will entertain a motion to refer this as a committee report for consideration on the 22nd, that is not necessary, so i will excise those words and we will send item 6 as a committee record with recommendation for tomorrow. and item 7 we will send with recommendation and will be heard on the 22nd at 10:00 a.m. on that motion, a roll call please. >> yes. on that motion, supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without

objection. >> could you please read item 8? >> thank you, ms. eisen and team. >> charter amendment first draft to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to create the homelessness oversight commission, to oversee the department of homelessness and supportive housing. to be considered at election to be held on november 8, 2022. >> all right. in so far as the primary sponsor of this charter amendment is not here, why don't we start with public comment. >> yes. on this matter, members of the public who wish to speak on this item and are joining us in-person should line up to speak now alongside of the room by the windows. for those listening remotely, call 415-655-0001 and enter 2491 326 8157 and prez pound and pound again. once kekted, please sign up to

speak. for those in the queue, that will be the cue to begin. >> we're going to have another maybe three. >> good morning. my name is jordan davis and my pronouns are she/her and although i support oversight of the troubled h.s.h., i can not support safai's amendment unless we don't have a mayoral majority. mayors newsome, lee, and breed have had their and to continue the same bleep bleep we have had to deep with is offensive. to remove the neighborhood council merchant seat appointed by the mayor is what it is. these people know their ass like a hole in the ground when it comes to the complexity of people's trau mast and know how to tell unhoused neighbors to get the [bleep] out and that the not someone i i want one 1-7

votes being. three v a tendency not appointed by the mayor and preferably by the board. we must prioritized those with lived experience as a permanent supportive housing tenant, i am angry and [bleep] aggravate supervisor safai just decided to introduce this willy nilly like the kool aid man busting through the walls despite the fact he doesn't represent massive people experiencing homelessness like the tenderloin or the mission. there are so many community advocates that are agreeing with me on all our parts of this. and i just want to say no h.s.h. to paper tigers. i am [bleep] tired of dealing with bull [bleep] and supportive housing and it is gross in will continue unless it is amended. please, listen to tenant. we got a couple here. please, i yield the rest of my time. >> next speaker please.

>> i have it. >> good morning. my name is aaron means and i am the tenant rep at the mission hotel and the founder and executive director of the community partnership program. the community partnership program provides supplemental comprehensive support services for tenants at the mission hotel. the mission hotel is, asm sure you know t largest s.r.o. in california. and as a frontline worker at the mission hotel, i have seen some serious stuff. yeah, i have seen just mind

blowing stuff. that points to the challenges of supportive housing. so i will say to you, to this committee this morning, my constituents who have lost hope, who are isolating in their rooms, because they believe that the city really doesn't care about their living conditions. my constituents who who are kind of just lost in the hallways after the case manager's and the front and the front office staff leaves. they need the very best

selection process for the oversight committee. i don't even -- it's interesting, you know i was thinking about this last night and i said, what would be supportive positions for allowing the mayor to appoint this board? i couldn't think of any. it seems like a no-brainer to me. seems like a no-brainer. >> speaker time has elapsed. >> okay. >> next speaker please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is liza markowski and today i speak as an independent. one second. i apologize. i have been working on an oversight and accountability resolution that was fist drafted in 2018 with the former mental health board, which is now the behavioral health commission. ski you to consider postponing this charter amendment and any vote until this resolution for oversight and account sblt

presented to the board of supervisors by the behavioral health commission. its principles are for the people, by the people and of the people. this resolution was written based on the evidence released in the chronical last month of the living conditions in a low income housing..r.o.s and the evidence produced is an investigation dating back to 2015. it is clear we made oversight and accountability but not dictated by those not suffering, making a profit off of the human dignity and the human rights. please, do not pass this charter amendment. we do not need anymore control from the mayor's office on the living conditions. if that evidence wasn't enough, i can guarantee you that more is coming your way. i yield the rest of my time. thanks for your consideration. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public for item eight in the

board chambers? seeing none, are there remote speakers for this item? >> we have eight people on the line and four in line to speak. >> first remote speaker please. >> good morning, supervisors. i coordinate the san francisco housing committee and i am calling in because like most of the supervisors and member of the public here, i have been deeply concerned with the living conditions and space of many s.o.o.s. we have to change the structure and the charter amendment before you would leave the mayor's office in charge of oversight as it has been for decades by allowing the mayor to appoint a majority of commissioners. the charter amendment also includes a seat for a member of a merchant association or neighborhood association who would have no natural expertise on homelessness. at the same time, there's no seat for a permanent supportive

housing tenant on this commission which is surprising given the outcomes of the chronicle article. tenants directly have the best idea where their own living conditions are and should have a voice in setting the budget to accommodate that. i am calling in on behalf of the san francisco democrats to urge you to oppose this charter amendment and unless the proposed commission is amended to remove the majority of the mayoral appointment and the emergent or neighborhood association member is replaced by a permanent supportive housing tenant apointed by the board of supervisors. we need an h.s.h. commission and the oversight but it has to be done correctly and with lived experience with homelessness. listen to activists like jordan davis who is on hunger strike trying to ensure proper oversight. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> good morning, members. i am calling to oppose this legislation unless amended. h.s.h. need oversight. it is a system sorely in need of help and oversight, but i can't support this measure unless we remove the mayoral majority appointment. that doesn't even make sense. it doesn't make sense for the mayor to appoint people to oversee a department she already has direct oversight over. it's pointless. a pointless measure unless she removes that piece. i would ask that the merchant neighborhood seat be replaced with the permanent supporting housing tenant because the tenant should have more say what goes on in the supportive housing unit than merchant groups who really just talk about trying to -- well, anyway. we need a supportive housing

tenant on the board to inform the commission as well. please do not support the legislation unless it is amended. >> thank you. next speaker. >> -- chair peskin and -- good morning, chair peskin and members of the rules committee. i am mary kate and i am a policy director at family services as well as the co-chair of hespa on the local homeless coordinating board and we support the idea of an oversight commission but only if there is an appointment authority as the other speakers and could be appointed by the controller or health officer. also, we believe that one of the seats should go to a permanent supportive housing tenant and the wording relates to the our city, our home oversight committee should be changed to

ensure that the committee can make recommendations to the mayor and the board, not just the commission. commissions we know are not silver bullets and we risk adding another layer of bureaucracy and part of the process for the process. >> thank you. >> next caller please. >> this is david elliott lewis. i am a member of the tenderloin people's congress, chair of the vision 2020 committee that worked with the planning commission. with the way it is currently structured is deficient. if you're going to do it, let's do it right. i myself have lived 13 of 16 years in permanent supportive

housing and graduated from it and no longer do, but i did once live and i can tell you this type of housing which is critical for housing people who have been previously homeless needs oversight, needs accountability. needs checks and balances. and you've gone halfway there with the legislation, but you're missing critical speess. and including and not having a single representative of somebody who lives in such housing, you have emergency which doesn't make any sense to me and no seats for people who have lived experience of living in housing. plus, as was previously said, since the mayor already controls the h.s.h. system, why would the mayor be given appointments for the seats. it should be the board of supervisors that gives appointments and just through the rules committee. that would be a better system of

accountability than what you have designed right now. so if you're going to do this, and i hope you do do it, do it right with the proposed amendments that jordan davis has mentioned, that curtis bradford has mentioned, that others have mentioned and really smart people who have mentioned with lived experience in this type of housing. again, my name is david elliott lewis, tenderloin people's congress. thank you very much. >> thank you. can we have the next caller. >> hello. i am a san francisco resident of district 8 and i am going to echo a lot of the points that the previous commenters have made. we all read the chronicle article that exposed the deficient conditions of s.r.o.s and other supportive housing. i think it's no surprise we need

oversight, but the mayor has that oversight and directly oversaw the departments and the mayor should not get any of the power. the little half and half to make the balance, that is not where she should have any power at all. in any case, i oppose this legislation and unless amended. at the very minimum, the majority of the appointed seats should not be appointed by the mayor, but ideally none of them should. and are you kidding me with the merchant and neighborhood associate member on the oversight committee? that is just -- they don't know anything about people who live in the permanent supportive housing and experience homelessness. it is just kind of gross to have

that seat suggested. again, as with any and all of the commissions, people who have lived experience should be the ones who are dictating how oversight of these permanent supportive housing should go. that is a no brainer. and so please make these amounts. h.s.h. does need oversight by someone other than the mayor and make the amendments before you go and recommend the legislation. otherwise, i oppose it entirely. thank you so much. >> thank you. next caller. >> good morning. my name is dale seymour. the first thing i want to say is the san francisco chronicle does not run the city. maybe it does, but it shouldn't. we shouldn't base our decision and allow planning on what the chronicle comes out with but i have a lot of friends at the criterion l can, so i am not

just ratting them out. the other way the city charter is set up in this city, i am not blaming london breed for oversighting all these organizations unfairly if the anything, the way the charter said any mayor has complete 100% oversight overall the departments. and whether we come up with someone for the commission or not t mayor's office will have the last say in this department. some years ago i would have been very excited about having an oversight and additional oversight commission coming over h.s.h. and the mayor pick such a remarkable woman and director mcfadden that i have less concern and how they are going well and historically hard it has been. and pushing for the amendment and to supervisor safai's that

whatever we deal with is better than all if we are going to do it. just understand that the way the city is set up, the mayor will still be able to run and oversight and make the final decision and anything we do. thank you. have a great day. >> thank you. next caller. >> david pilpal again. on this issue, i think the solution to every city issue is not necessarily to create a new board or commission even when doing so makes sense. there is no single appropriate model structure. each body should be structured individually and intentionally. if there is a new commission to be created here and i am not yet convinced, but my mind is open.

some would argue my mind is very open and there is not much in there, but anyway, i am not yet convinced. i agree the appointments should be different and one or two general public seats and not the merchant or neighborhood organization representative, not just those with experience or expertise in being unhoused or in the industry. possibly a 3, 3, and 1 structure or a three by the mayor and one by the controller or health officer. who was suggested that, that was an interested idea. i am intrigued by that. maybe make this more like the housing authority commission for better and worse. i think more studies needed here and this may or may not be ready to go this year. i am very interested in hearing from the sponsors about their intentions since supervisor safai was not in chamber at the

beginning of the hearing. finally, i am not clear how this would work with the behested payment and perhaps discussion of this assuming it survives today's hearing would be helpful. thanks for listening. >> thank you. that was our last caller for public comment. >> okay. public comment on item 8 is closed and we are joined by supervisor safai who is the primary sponsor of this charter amendment. supervisor safai t floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin. thank you, colleagues. thank you to all the individuals that came in person and called in over the phone. this is something that people have been talking about and thinking about for some piem t creation of -- for some time t creation of a charter for this department. this is one of the largest if not the largest city department and this upcoming fiscal year.

it will have almost a (70) 000-0000 budget and this is without an oversight chartered commission. for me the motivating factor is truly transparency, oversight and accountability. and this is not a dig at the department or the leadership. i think they work tremendously hard. i think they do everything they can to deliver a difficult service. but this is truly about bringing this department in line with the oversight accountability that we have in other departments as vice chair of the budget committee, often times we will find out about items that will be coming in front of us. the friday before the wednesday meeting. and that is a significant disadvantage to be asked to review contracts, asked to weigh in on a significant policy

decision at the last moment when we are talking about one of the most vexing problems that has faced san francisco for decades. so for me, as someone who has spent almost half of his career on the streets in the tenderloin, at the housing authority w the janitor's union, dealing with many people in affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, supportive housing, this is an extremely, extremely important step i think our city is making. to answer the question about accountability first and foremost, this is an executive strong city. if people don't like the fact this is an executive strong city, they can go to the charter and can confront that head on. but ultimately the department of homelessness and supportive housing is an executive appointed and executive run department.

and the buck needs to stop with someone. there needs to be someone that is first and foremost held accountability. the board of supervisors, all of my colleagues and i, field a tremendous number of calls. there is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction in the city as this issue is dealt with and confronted with. and yes, we are, too, held accountability. i think supervisor and chair peskin said it best when we started this conversation. as the former myself as a former chair of the rules committee, when we have major committee positions, they are subject to board confirmation, i think about 99% of the time we get it right. if there is a proposed person to come into one of the seats of the mayor position, the board does its job and holds the

mayor's office and that person accountability and there's been times when we have had to reject the mayor's proposals. with mayoral confirmation at the board and the board having a strong number of seats, this strikes the right balance. first and foremost t mayor is the one that will be held accountability and should be held accountability. and the board of supervisors is a backup and a secondary role. our ability to affirm the mayor positions gives us that additional power of oversight and check and balance. we will be proposing some amendments today. we have gotten feedback. because we are making the amendments today, i wanted the public to know this item will be continued as required because it is a charter amendment. and we will have an opportunity to continue the conversation. folks will have an opportunity to weigh in further. and as i said earlier, this is a

department with almost a $700 million budget. and yet there is no public hearing or commission approval for its work. i think that is something that has to change. some contracts but not all come to the board for approval, and there is no requirement that this is is audited on a continual basis. that is another change in this charter amendment and something that we are working on and we think needs improvement. if it is okay with you, mr. chair, i can go through the amendments that i am proposing today that have been distributed to the committee. and so i'll start on page 2 of lines 10 through 19. the city attorney proposes and we accepted technical amendments that describe the appointment process. on page two, the line 24 through page three, line two, we would require that one of the mayoral

appointments have f have experience with budget finance and auditing. and we received a lot of concerns about someone who would have that fiscal background. it doesn't change the requirements but says one of the persons on top of the initial requirements would also have some experience in budgeting and finance. on page four, line one, we correct a grammatical error. and i no mr. pillpal will appreciate that. on page five, line six, at the request of the our city, our home oversight committee, we took their request and because they currently have the responsibility to advise the mayor and the board, we will keep that that will be both an advisory role for the mayor and the board along with the new commission. the thing that i think we will have to work out and i think we

can work out administratively is that the processes for the department doing its budget and when our city our home is having its timeline, those need to come unline. and the work is happening on the same time line to kind of facilitate the work of the department and facilitate the work of our city, our home. we can have further conversations about that. on page 7, line 7, we specify that the controller can audit homeless services as part of the city auditor's homeless possibility. this will be the first time that they would have the ability as part of the city auditor's responsibility to have additional responsibility to do this work on homeless services. so we'll have an opportunity to discuss all of these policies, issues at the future meetings so in the interest of time, i am happy to and that back over to the chair and request the committee adopt the proposed amendments today.

>> thank you, commissioner safai. i am happy to development the amendments. i appreciate the fact that you introduced the amendments early before the deluge come to the remaining committee later this month. and it doesn't put us under pressure to have a longer term, conceptual charter conversation. and to that end, i wanted to just kind of highlight a number of thoughts. [please stand by]

>> in the context what we are hearing concerns about relative to the majority. i say that noting that during just the course of this hearing we have received communications by e-mail from the anti-displacement coalition with concerns about the majority commissions. the next item also and i don't have a preconceived conclusion

about it is the question as to whether these commissioners both board and mayoral appointed should sheriff at the pleasure as is currently in the draft or term appointments only to be removed for cause. i think there are arguments pro and confor both models and they exist in different commission structures. as i spoke with you about this morning, supervisor safai, in looking at page 4 and the charter requirement that no later than may 1, 2023 the board would enact by ordinance certain things as it relates to local homeless coordinating board and the shelter monitoring committee and by adding in paddition to

instead of in lou of. i not that the structures of both homeless coordinating board which we are required to have pursuant to federal law is a evenly split body with four appointees, four board of supervisors appointees anti breaker, if you will, appointment by controller. shelter monitoring committee is entirely board appointed. i understand the need for or desire for one stop shopping. i think supervisor mandelman expressed that in the past and consolidated all of these various governmental bodies under one body. i understand the appeal of that.

i also, as i voiced to you this morning, worry about, particularly, the independence of the sheltering monitoring committee. unlikely i can see a scenario where in a majority mayoral appointed commission appointed a shelter monitoring committee that was -- how shall i say it. i am not pointing at this particular mayor, that was less inclined to discharge the sheltering monitoring that they were to do with the staff at department of public health. i would hate to have them be told hear, see, report no evil. i am inclined to remove sheltering monitoring

appointment process from the charter amendment if it were to stay with the mayoral commission that appointed this committee. those are my high level thoughts after doing what i always do before these come to us which is to sit down and read it and think about it, which is what i did this weekend. i will leave those out as food for thought. amendments you have brought seem acceptable. with that i will turn it over to supervisors chanand mandelman. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. i am ready to support the amendment supproposed. i appreciate supervisor safai's leadership. i agree the department of homelessness and supportive housing should really have an oversight commission. i do and i want to say this is not just particularly this

homeless oversight commission. last december i introduced a charter amendment for split appointment for the charter commission to come through and evaluate appointments best practices in which case. we did not move forward for many reasons including the one that i proposed as charter amendment for split appointment holds the mayor appointees at the majority. in what i have learned is that there is another model that exists that would the board majority, our oversights commission or a split appointment between the mayor and the board of supervisors and then having a controller as tiebreaker. so to speak on public works and

sanitary streets commission. in those now then we have three -- more than three appointment models. what i look forward to is some consistency and streamlined process for appointments. it is the reason i have reservation about currently the way that is split. i do actually as i look and observe and track all of these appointments and commission bodies and makeup of them, i am leaning toward seeing a split evenly between the mayor and board of supervisors with an expert in the city government or someone like the controller to be a tiebreaker. it is a good model and good model that is fair in the way thatral -- truly provides

oversight to any city department. that is where i am at. there are thoughts like term limits. do we impose term limits on the charter commission? also consistency which is part of your amendment for the mayoral appointments to subject to a public hearing and vote by the board of supervisors within 60 days. that is consistent to what i would like to see for all mayoral appointments as well. 60 days is fair. especially including possibility these can be made during legislative recess to give us time to be able to evaluate and review the appointees resumes and 700 forms that is where i am at. i want to thank supervisor safai for your leadership.

i look forward to more conversation. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, mr. chair. since we are sort of broadening out to have a larger conversation about balance of powers and how to think about that in san francisco. i am not sure the right answer. as i look at san francisco city government and where i feel we are not delivering, i do not see an over executive governing too much in the city. sometimes i feel like i don't see enough execution or administration that is partly built into our system which is unique. i don't think there are that familiar california municipalities or counties to prioritize separation of powers to get at public good.

generally, the legislative body that executes. we don't have the necessarily the friction that you want. i think friction if everybody is march anything the same direction, there is potential problems of corruption or bad decision making or whatever. we have had corruption in san francisco. we will have some corruption in san francisco. the failure to our public, particularly around things like homelessness, in my view, is not that the mayor has too much power, i don't think. when i think about the ways in which we have failed residents of our nonprofit operated sros, there are policy and

budget choices underlying those failures that i do not know would be fixed by the sharing of more authority with the board of supervisors. i believe that there are benefits to commissions. i think that having a forum where all folks in the public from tenants of public housing to neighbors upset about the city's failures around street conditions to nonprofit executive directors who aren't seeing the city acting in a way that makes sense have the ability to come and plead their case. one could say that to the san francisco board of supervisors we are not functioning in that way to be that place where everybody pleads their case. what we do have are a plethora of bodies that people think

might be the homelessness commission, but don't in fact represent all of the interests that have a stake in homeless policy. don't have that much formal authority but do have the ability all of them to command the time and attention and resources of staff who try to address their particular needs. i don't think the homelessness commission is the solution to the problems identified in the excellent chronicle coverage of failures in sro housing. i do think the commission could be useful as that place where everybody gets to come and plead their case and all folk with an interest get city staff to explain what they are doing and why it makes sense. my concerns, one, i don't want

that body to make the implementation and execution of government around homelessness more slow in the city nor do i want there to be an additional administrative burden on the department. someone referred to it as a troubled department. it is a six-year-old department not adequately resourced trying to figure out what to do with multiple decision-makers pointing in different directions. supervisor mandelman saying you need to shelter to other folks saying you need to house everybody to the other demands on them. i don't want to see this commission become another body that hsh staff have to answer to. i support supervisor safai's work on this. he has come up with a commission

that makes sense. i am concerned about the direction the conversation is going. i do not support all supervisor safai's amendments. in particular, i do not support the in addition languages on pages 1 and 5. one of the chief benefits of the commission is in having one ultimate body other than us responsible for being the forum around homeless policy conversations. adding on another body to the several that we already have is not good from an administrative perspective from staff time management perspective. when it comes to and i will ask the chair to allow me to vote separately on that particular amendment. in terms of things to make it harder or not have a mayorral

majority. i think it should be two thirds vote to reject mayor's choices i am okay with supervisor safai's comments. they function as additional almost staff level function. the problem we are solving with the shelter monitoring committee is more robust staffing on the city side could address and putting in -- i don't necessarily know that is the place where we need to have an ombudsman not responsive to the mayor to challenge what the executive is doings. it seems like the executive in the department of public health the branch is trying to make those shelters better. those are my preliminary

thoughts. >> supervisor safai: thank you all for your thoughtful constructive criticism. it is six years since creation of this department. usually when people turn six they graduate from kindergarten and go to first grade and are ready to start big time schooling. i think the department of homeless supportive housing is graduating from kindergarten and going to get a commission. this is long overdue. i think that it is also the department that ramped up over time. started smaller, spent time console dating other departments. supervisor peskin longest-serving member on the board that i have learned tremendously from. one of the things he

overemphasized if he is the supervisor emeritus on the board is checks and balances. the executive. everyone understands the play or proposes the budget and control the direction of the city through the allocation of funding. it is our job at the board of supervisors to have that policy discussion and shape the direction of that. we tinker around the edges ultimately. we are helping with the policy. we do provide that check. we took language to respond to some of the comments today, we took the language 60 day approval from other commissions. i think that strikes the right balance. i think that there should be a time limit where we can respond but not too short in case we are on recess that we are not able to responds to something. that is to be.

supervisor, there is once or twice i sept a letter and requested someone to have a firm conversation around be. at the pleasure versus term appointments. i am open to that conversation. once people get on commissions they don't want to leave. that is the nature of having the authority and say. one of the reasons we have term limits in society. it works well. i am definitely open to that. this is not going to be the final round of amendments that i propose. definitely open to that conversation. to be clear on the two other homeless coordinating committee and shelter monitoring committee. i see the point supervisor peskin is trying to make. i agree regarding the shelter monitoring committee. i don't want there to be additional advising other than

what was already approved by the voters. our city our home was put in front of the voters in a clear way. it is something they have been doing. i am happy to balance that. they can continue to advice board and mayor. they will primarily advise the new charter commission and work in coordination. if the shelter and monitoring committee were appointed the way it is as you talked about, chair peskin. i think it would need to advise the commission. the advicing portion is what is important there. same with local homeless coordinating committee. they can addvise the commission. keep that conversation going. also, since we are calling the

balls and strikes this morning. the executive branch did not want this commission. rendition was the first proposed by supervisor haney. mayor's office asked as was reported in the chronicle story. they asked this body not to support the commission. they wanted to ability, time and flexibility to continue to advise this department. we gave them that time. as i said, i think it is important that now we have made the decision as this body and i feel strongly about it that the board is leading this conversation. that is why i put this forward. i felt it was important that we create this commission and do it in what we felt was the best policy for the city and this department. the mayor's office has given feedback. we appreciate the department of

homeless and supportive housing has given input as have the people that have spoken today. we will get to the right point. i feel strongly about mayoral majority that is important based on a lot of arguments about the budget, direction where accountability stops. i agree with supervisor mandelman. i do not want to propose something that would slow things down further and dilute that. shelter monitoring i am happy to entertain the appointment by board. i would want advising to the commission. that is a fair compromise. 60 day approval is good balance. open to term appointments. that is something that could definitely make sense. let's talk further about that.

the local homeless coordinating board has certain requirements from the federal level. i don't know that is as important. we could change and go with the commission there. supervisor chan, you brought up 60 day approval and talked about appointments and term limits. i think i have addressed most of your concerns, supervisor mandelman. i would say on your point you want to pull out and vote separately on. the voters of san francisco put that forward to us. we put that in that ballot measure. we are following the will of the voters of san francisco there. that is why i am happy to entertain the joint advising role. >> a couple things before i call

supervisor mandelman. if we are just talking about -- thank you for the comments supervisor safai. i appreciate the discussion and the fact we can continue having it for a little while. as relates to replacing the in lieu within addition to language i am happy to vote separately. it is kind of a difference to my mind that changing it to the in addition to language. i don't think it is a big deal. reality. anybody can give advice to anybody. it is stating the obvious. there are many places that this supervisor gets advice not set forth in the charter and not illegal to get that advice i have unlimited power of inquiry as matter of law. i am happy to call on supervisor

mandelman. it might be good for the panel and public and deliberation to hear from the agency itself. we have ms. snider and ms. co-en here. madam deputy directors feel free to come up and add your two cents or more. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity. emily cohen deputy director department of homelessness and supportive house less. the homeless oversight commission, this is important discussion to have. i think one of the -- there are many benefits to the oversight commission. as supervisor mandelman said incredible benefit to streamline the oversight that exists. right now hsh without of commission reporting to multiple

appointed bodies with some level of advisory role to the department. it is cumbersome and doesn't give the public the transparency they want and need. i think it is critical that this commission roll up as many of those advisory functions as possible including our city our home in terms of that reporting structure. local homeless coordinating board. we have work to do, trailing legislation to rethink that body should we have a commission to reflect the federal requirement of the continuum of care of the body rather than the current makeup. we have a lot of work to do on the back end if it becomes a coc board to advise the commission. shelter monitoring, shelter grievance advisory not included

in the charter amendment would having those feed up to i think the appointed structure aside. ensuring that the functioning through the commission so the public has one place to go, department has one place to bring proposals. and the work we do is incredibly important. i do think the department takes issue with some of the seats as they are currently drafted in that we call out certain subpopulations of people experiencing homelessness and not others. given the changes in the homeless population the recommendation is to keep those broad representing the needs of people experiencing homelessness, providers but not calling out specific subpopulations. additionally, i think it is important and one challenge we faced with the lh cb and our

city our home and this is covered in state laws. we might not need to a the charter amendment to ensure this. it is important that no members of the commission have financial conflicts with the department. right now on the local board and on the our city our home oversight committee. people representing nonprofit organizations have to reaccuses themselves on votes. that leads to quorum issues and challenges where you are overly engaged in the discussion about funding mechanism or priority. you might not vote on it. your organization could be on the receiving end of those contracts. i believe the state law covers that. staff is telling me. extra caution in that area is important. those are some of our primary

thoughts. i am happy to answer any specific questions. >> chair preston: thank you for those thoughts. -- >> supervisor peskin: as chair of the rules committee there are difficulty in filling certain seats that by prescription were too narrow and broader is better for future boards and mayors relative to appointments. supervisor safai he you might want to take that under consideration. i will add -- >> that was one thing i didn't speak about. no one brought that up. i want to address that. in terms of the specified. this was written the first

rendition by supervisor main ne. we looked at -- haney. we looked at the details. major change adding someone from neighborhood association business committee input for someone having the lived experience on every day interactions. that is an important part who we hear from daily. it is one out of the seven seats. adding a layer of fiscal and budget responsibility. it makes stronger, doesn't dilute. in terms of the board seats. we have heard feedback. seat five and six from supportive housing could fit in there. if you look at the makeup who served within the universe of

housing. 87% are single adults. we wanted to specifically and this was written in there. we feel strongly about keeping seat 7. homeless family and children because they are so often overshadowed in conversation of delivery of homeless services. we thought it was important to call that one sab category out. in terms of us living in transitional housing, shelter, permanent supportive, tenant, previously lived that is all in seat five and six. it will be our job as board of supervisors to appoint someone into that category. just wanted everyone to understand the thinking behind seat 7 and why we specifically chose the family and/or children or homeless youth because they

are such a smaller percentage but an often secondary in the delivery and conversation of services. i wanted to really highlight that in particular. we could see those three seats then being occupied or taken up with people in the other categories. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor safai. i will also add that the ordinances as relates to shelter monitoring and coordinating board are things this board can change at any time regardless of the charter admonition. to the extent, for instance, that as supervisor mandelman said that the shelter monitoring committee staffed not by hsh but by department of public health would benefit from more robust

staffing. that might change the thinking about shelter monitoring committee. that is within the purview of board as ordinance. don't know that it needs called out. there is a provision in the charter amendment that causes subsections a through j and 4.133 to be removed from the charter a year later. we have the band width to adjust the shelter monitoring committee accordingly p.it is okay with supervisor safai i would add as friendly amendment if acceptable to supervisor safai. the notion to strike at page 4 of your amended legislation subsection h2 admonition for amendment of shelter monitoring committee which we can do. i strike those five lines in

subsection two if it is acceptable to the offer. >> supervisor safai: that is lines 14? >> supervisor peskin: to the original version included in the measure page 4 lines 9-13. amends article 12 of chapter 20 to provide commission shall appoint members of the shelter monitoring committee and shall advice the commission in lieu. they shall not preclude the city by amending said article 12 in a man nor not inconsistent. >> it is about the local? >> supervisor peskin: yes and i agree with the motion the shelter monitoring committee should advice up to this

commission should it come to pass. i don't think that needs to be in the charter. we can just fix that without put anything the charter amendment. i am fine with that. we can do that the day after the charter amendment passed or like our cases we can pass now and have it become effective when the charter amendment passes. >> you are talking about the appointment aspect, right? >> supervisor peskin: correct. >> it says shall advice the commission. >> i was just speaking to that. >> we can do that by ordinance without the charter. we don't need it in the charter to say thousand shall do your job. if we all say we shall say they shall advice the new commission. we don't need it in the charter. >> i understand and see that as

a friendly amendment. i am fine. >> with that, supervisor mandelman. >> the board could do something sensible in the future doesn't mean we will. adding bureaucracy we do not. i will go against the amendment. >> the amendment as a whole? >> supervisor peskin: okay. why don't we move rather than in pieces move supervisor safai's amendments that he brought to committee today on that motion. roll call, please. >> on the motion to amend. >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> no. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> motion passes.

with supervisor mandelman dissenting in commissionty. >> article 12 of chapter 20. everything i say i generally get done. leave that discussion for when we hear this next. madam city attorney you have something to say. >> yes, city attorney ann pearson. if you remove the language regarding shelter monitoring committee i need conforming edits later in the ordinance. >> supervisor peskin: i won't do that today. we can take that offline in the intervening time. supervisor safai you were going to say what? >> supervisor safai: i was going to say i would strike almost all of it. i know you said later.

we could maybe meet halfway and say amends article 12 of chapter 20 of the administrative code that the shelter monitoring committee shall advice then strike all the other language. >> supervisor peskin: madam city attorney i know you hate us amending charters on the fly what i believe supervisor safai if you are comfortable. charters are charters you have got to be precise and careful. eliminate at line 10 that the commission shall appoint all members of the shelter monitoring committee and that so that it would say to provide shelter monitoring committee shall advice the commission in lieu of the local homeless coordinating board. >> i appreciate you understand our reluctance to making charter

amendments on the fly. we can do this one. it is straightforward. >> supervisor peskin: second motion that the an for mentioned words at line 10 it would be to remove line 10. do i have that right, ms. pearson? >> i am not sure i am looking at the exact same print beout. i don't have that printout in front of me. >> supervisor peskin: sub h (2). amends article 12 chapter 20 of administrative code to provide. first line. i suggest the second line at line 10 be stricken in entirety to provide shall advice the commission in lieu of lh cb. >> it doesn't appear online 10. i understand.

>> supervisor peskin: i make that motion to remove those words which i think i have stated quite clearly on that motion, mr. clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: motion to further amend the charter amendment. supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> no. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes with supervisor mandelman dissenting in commissionty. >> supervisor peskin: given we don't have a meeting next monday. may have some specials and things up in the air but i am committed to hearing this again as quickly as possible. i will make a motion to continue the item as twice amended to the call of the chair. >> clerk: on the motion to continue as amended to the call of the chair.

supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> supervisor peskin: we are adjourned.

>> we are right now in outer richmond in the last business area of this city. this area of merchants is in the most western part of san francisco, continue blocks down the street they're going to fall into the pacific ocean. two blocks over you're going to have golden gate park. there is japanese, chinese, hamburgers, italian, you don't have to cook. you can just walk up and down the street and you can get your cheese. i love it. but the a very multicultural place with people from everywhere. it's just a wonderful environment. i love the richmond district.

>> and my wife and i own a café we have specialty coffee drinks, your typical lattes and mochas and cappuccinos, and for lunches, sandwiches and soup and salad. made fresh to order. we have something for everybody >> my shop is in a very cool part of the city but that's one of the reasons why we provide such warm and generous treats, both physically and emotionally (♪♪) >> it's an old-fashioned general store. they have coffee. other than that what we sell is fishing equipment. go out and have a good time. >> one of my customers that has been coming here for years has always said this is my favorite store. when i get married i'm coming in your store.

and then he in his wedding outfit and she in a beautiful dress came in here in between getting married at lands end and to the reception, unbelievable. (♪♪) >> the new public health order that we're announcing will require san franciscans to remain at home with exceptions only for essential outings. >> when the pandemic first hit we kind of saw the writing on the walls that potentially the city is going to shut all businesses down. >> it was scary because it was such an unknown of how things were going to pan out.

i honestly thought that this might be the end of our business. we're just a small business and we still need daily customers. >> i think that everybody was on edge. nobody was untouched. it was very silent. >> as a business owner, you know, things don't just stop, right? you've still got your rent, and all of the overhead, it's still there. >> there's this underlying constant sense of dread and anxiety. it doesn't prevent you from going to work and doing your job, it doesn't stop you from doing your normal routine. what it does is just make you feel extra exhausted. >> so we began to reopen one year later, and we will emerge

stronger, we will emerge better as a city, because we are still here and we stand in solidarity with one another. >> this place has definitely been an anchor for us, it's home for us, and, again, we are part of this community and the community is part of us. >> one of the things that we strived for is making everyone in the community feel welcome and we have a sign that says "you're welcome." no matter who you are, no matter what your political views are, you're welcome here. and it's sort of the classic san francisco thing is that you work with folks. >> it is your duty to help everybody in san francisco.

>> all right. hieverybody . i've i'm sanfrancisco mayor london bree . [applause] welcome to the tried raising flagceremony . and i have a very, very big announcement today . holes want to crybecause i'm so happy . but i along with our lgbt queue public safetyofficials will be marching in pride this year . [applause] and so