Skip to main content

tv   BOS Rules Committee  SFGTV  November 20, 2023 10:00am-12:36pm PST

10:00 am
with programs and events this can be passed down to future drag laureate this is come after me and can set a stage and standard for what this program is in san francisco and national low and inner nationally. there is a rich history in san francisco. that the drag community has been part of. i'm very proud to follow in their footsteps and able to maintain what the drag community has done in the past and move forward with creating a bright future. my job is to elevate and celebrate
10:01 am
hold on a second. oh, there we go. this meeting will come to order. good morning, everyone, and welcome to the monday, november 13th, 2023, meeting of the rules committee of the san
10:02 am
francisco board of supervisors. i'm supervisor matt dorsey, chair of this committee, and i'm joined by vice chair shamann walton and committee member asha safai. together we would like to express our gratitude to our clerk today, mr. victor young. thanks also to the team at sf govtv for facilitating and broadcasting today's meeting. in particular our producer today, jeanette aguilar. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? yes. public comment. will be taken on each item on this agenda. when your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak on the right. alternatively you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. email them to myself. the rules committee clerk at victor young at sf gov. org if you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and included as part of the file. you may also send your written comments via us mail to our office at city hall. one dr. carlton goodlett place room 244 san francisco, calif.
10:03 am
94102. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk myself. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda on november 28th unless otherwise stated. that completes my initial announcements. thank you, mr. clerk. before we get started, in the interest of time that we are going to be limiting public, general public comment on on issues to one minute and then those people who are content for spots to two minutes. mr. clerk could you please call item number one? yes hearing to consider appointing three members terms ending november 30th, 2024 to the ballot simplification committee. thank you, mr. clerk. we have three nominees joining us today, or actually two are joining us. but three nominees for the ballot simply allocation committee. for those unfamiliar with this bodies, it's powers and duties are enumerated in
10:04 am
section 610 of the municipal elections code. they generally involve preparing a digest for each measure voted to be voted on in the city and county of san francisco and assisting the director of elections to prepare additional materials for the voter information pamphlet. under that code, section seats one and two are nominated by either the national academy of television arts and sciences, northern california chapter or the northern california broadcast writers association. in today's case, both are nominated by the former separately seat. number three reflects a nomination from the league of women voters to the nominees here. i ask that you again limit your remarks to a couple of minutes and be available for q and a, if any. the nominee for seat one is christine. because of a miscommunication, i think miss unwra is unavailable to attend this morning's, but she has submitted a statement that i'm going to read on her behalf. i am a retired journalist and teacher. i worked for more than
10:05 am
20 years as an editor at the san francisco chronicle and is a freelance editor. later, i became a teacher at a low income schools in the city, teaching, writing, teaching and writing social studies and helping students and parents maneuver through high school applications processes. i have previously served on the ballot simplification committee with ms. packard as the chairwoman. i resigned from the psc because i could no longer devote the time necessary to be a productive member of that committee. during my tenure on the committee, many acquaintance has remarked to me how much they valued the concise language about ballot measures that was available on the voter handbook, proving to me that the bsc is a very important part of our voting process. i look forward to serving on this committee again. so next, let me invite up ms. betty packard, who has been renominated to seat number two. ms. packard, welcome to the rules committee. the floor is yours. good morning. well supervisor walton is my supervisor, and i have met you, supervisor dorsey. and i've met
10:06 am
supervisor in the past. so i have chaired this. i have been on this committee since 1997. i have chaired the committee since 2004. and i have at times regretted that. but always at the end i am proud, proud of what we have accomplished. and one of the things that i keep telling voters is that when you read at the bottom of our page, that of our digest that says this is what will happen if you say yes, that's what will happen. and i am very proud of the fact that in all these years we when we have said this will happen, it has happened when passed. so sometimes it seems like a brutal task. but i guess all volunteerism is like that. so i am happy that chris is
10:07 am
coming back. she had to resign for employment purposes, but now she's retired. i am so thrilled that she's back and we have a brand new person from the league of women voters. so we're looking forward to welcoming her to the fold. and one of these days, the school board will find it within themselves to find a representative to this committee . but for now, this is the seventh year we have operate without a fifth member. so but other than that, i welcome your questions. great. thank you, ms. packard i'm seeing no one on the roster. let's invite up. you can go ahead and take a seat. we may have questions or comments afterwards, but i'd like to invite up ruth grace wong, who has been nominated to seat three by the league of women voters. is ruth here? yeah. okay i agree . hi. sorry, i'm taking my kid to a doctor's appointment after
10:08 am
great. should i introduce myself ? yeah. yeah. great. hi. i'm ruth. i'm the nominee for the league of women voters, currently serving on their board. i was excited about ballot simplification committee. i've done some freelance writing in the past. mostly kind of technical about manufacturing. and i also edit wikipedia as a hobby, and i figured this would be a similar kind of like collaborative, deliberative of writing style. um, and yeah, i'm happy to be here. great. okay. thank you. ms. wong. i don't see anyone on, on the roster. mr. clerk. you can go ahead and take a seat. and mr. clerk, why don't we open this up to public comment? yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak now alongside by the windows. each speaker will be allowed one minute. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when you have when your time has expired. if you'd like to make public comment on this matter, please approach the podium. you can
10:09 am
begin. i go. should i go? okay. so my name is danielle deibler. i am a volunteer with ruth at the league of women voters of san francisco. i just came down today to express my support for her appointment to the ballot simplification committee. i'm excited for her enthusiasm and her dedication. an and we are really, really thrilled to have her being appointed to that board. thank you. thank you. next speaker. there does not appear to be any other speakers. thank you, mr. clerk and public comment on this item is now closed. supervisor safai thank you, chair. i just want to say thank you to ruth and miss packard. i've worked with miss packard in the past. it's for those that have gone through the process with the ballot simplification committee. they take their job very seriously and it's an important role in terms of getting a very clear
10:10 am
message in front of the voters in an understanding of how to participate in direct democracy. so i just want to thank miss packard for her commitment. it is a lot of work. it is a lot of time, effort and energy, but it is extremely valuable. so it's very much appreciated and thank you to ruth. looks like she's a new mom and dad. thank you for her interest and wanting to be involved in this process. i think you'll find it very fulfilling. thank you, chair. thank you. supervisor safai vice chair walton. thank you, chair dorsey. i just wanted to say ditto to supervisor. he's statements. thank you, vice chair. and i just want to express my appreciation for everyone who is doing this important work to anyone who questions how much words matter. i would invite you to go to a meeting of the ballot simplification committee and i had the opportunity back in 2019 when i was actually working with the before i was on the board when i was working with
10:11 am
supervisor vice chair walton on a ballot measure. and i can i mention we start on november 27th and all is invited to come and watch what we do. sure so i just want to express my appreciation for your service and your service and your continued service. i could see a lot of reasons why, having been through a couple of meetings, that debating words and why somebody might want to give up on that. and i appreciate that you're not giving up. so i'd like to make a motion to recommend christine unruh to seat one, betty packard to seat two. and ruth grace wong to seat three, and to send those recommendations to the full board as a committee report. mr. clerk, can we have a roll call on that motion? yes, on that motion. vice chair walton walton. i supervisor sapphire. sapphire. i chair. dorsey i. dorsey. i the motion passes without objection. thank you, mr. clerk. and now, item one three nominations to the ballot simplification committee. move to the full board of supervisors
10:12 am
with a positive recommendation and as a committee report. mr. clerk, can we please call item two items two and three together? yes. item number two is a hearing to consider the proposed declaration of policy submitted by four or more supervisors to the voters for the march 5th, 2024 election, entitled declaration of policy, urging the san francisco unified school district to offer algebra one to students by the eighth grade and supporting the san francisco unified school district in its effort to develop its mascot curriculum for students at all grade levels. item number three is a motion ordering submitted to the voters at an election to be held on march fifth, 2024. a declaration of policy urging the san francisco unified school district to offer algebra one to students by the eighth grade and supporting the san francisco unified school district in its efforts to develop the math curriculum for students at all grade levels. thank you, mr. clerk. our colleague, supervisor joel engardio, is the lead sponsor of these two items, and he is joining us this morning. i'd like to express our welcome
10:13 am
to supervisor engardio to the rules committee. supervisor the floor is yours. thank you. so i believe it's time to bring algebra back to middle school in san francisco. that's why i'm introducing a ballot measure urging our public schools to let kids take algebra by the eighth grade. now i know that sounds strange. the vast majority of americans take algebra in middle school. i took it in eighth grade. most school districts in the bay area teach basic algebra in the eighth grade. some even let seventh graders take it who show ability in math. but that's not what happens in san francisco. we stopped offering eighth grade algebra because some kids weren't ready for it. and our solution was to make everyone wait until the ninth grade. now, this was a well-intended policy. ac but a study by stanford university showed that it didn't work. it didn't help the kids who were behind in math and all we really did the past decade is hold kids back who love math. and we lost many of these kids when their parents pulled them out of public school. so we need to end
10:14 am
this experiment. we need to better prepare all students for algebra and not punish kids who can handle it earlier. now, why does eighth grade algebra matter to every resident of san francisco? we should care about this because, well, run public schools are essential for a city to function and thrive. we have a tale of two school systems in san francisco. private schools are growing and public school enrollment is declining. and this reduces school district revenues, which are based on the number of enrolled students and this makes it more difficult to provide what students and teachers need. a quarter of kids in san francisco attend private school, and that's compared to only 9% in california. and a policy against eighth grade algebra. it's a big factor when families decide to leave public schools and families also leave san francisco entirely. they leave for many reasons cost of housing, quality of life and schools. and we have the lowest percentage of children among major us cities. so our future in san francisco depends on
10:15 am
keeping families here and this starts with treating parents like partners and offering the courses and programs that will make parents want to choose public schools, especially the parents stretching themselves to pay for private tuition. now the board of supervisors, we don't have control over the school district. our schools are governed by an independently elected school board. but every resident of san francisco is our constituent, including parents and students, and their voices deserve to be heard. that's why i'm introducing through the board of supervisors this declaration of policy for the march 2024 ballot. it urges the school district to offer algebra one to students by the eighth grade and to develop a math curriculum that prioritizes excellence for students at all grade levels. i want to thank the co-sponsor of this measure, supervisor safaei supervisor dorsey melgar and stephanie, thanks to the efficacy of many parents of the school district has launched a committee tasked with bringing algebra back to eighth grade. and this is great.
10:16 am
love to see that. but as we know, there's no guarantee what this committee will determine. many parents have seen how school district committees have gone off the rails, so to speak. so that's why this ballot measure is important. it gives parents and voters the chance to tell the school district that there's a mandate for algebra in the eighth grade. and i believe if a kid likes math, let's do everything we can do to encourage it. so i appreciate it. if this committee supports sending this measure to the full board and with positive recommendation. thank you. thank you. supervisor engardio. supervisor safai. thank you, chair. thank you. supervisor engardio. i just want to add on a couple of things from my own perspective of i'm very happy to be a part of this effort to bring algebra back to the middle schools. about 25 years ago, i was a tutor with an organization called the algebra project, and the whole focus of the algebra project was to go into our middle schools, work with
10:17 am
children that had been historically tracked out of the proper college level math track. it was a civil rights math literacy organization. in focusing predominantly on african-american and latino students. and it had wonderful success. and it was a program that i think has been modeled around the country in many cities. chicago jacksonville, mississippi, new york, boston, cambridge and florida, and actually here in san francisco. for a time, it was in martin luther king middle school. we need programs like that. we need more opportunities to expand algebra for all students. and i think we can do it in very creative ways. a lot of that success begins even before eighth grade, and that was the work that we did. so i know that this is a non-binding referendum , but i think it will say very
10:18 am
loud and clear that this is something that san franciscans want. i'm glad to hear that the superintendent and the school board want to have and create a path, but i think this will put some additional emphasis behind it and it will accelerate that process also. so i just want to say for the record, even though we're doing this effort, we here at the board and the city and county have done a tremendous amount of work in the past to support our school, our public schools. we've done a property taxes to pay teachers. we've done the public education enrichment fund to do enrichment services. and then just last year, we passed the student success fund, which will focus predominantly on schools that have lower scores when it comes to our achievement gap. and supporting those that don't have the resources to do math literacy, english literacy and whole school support. so i think this is just another step in the right direction to get the school district back on track.
10:19 am
and i think we can do it in a collaborative and positive way. i think there's a lot of individuals that want to be involved in this conversation and want to help get the school district to offer. and as joel said, there are a lot of there are a lot of families that leave for that decision and those that don't. and this happens on a on a on a monthly basis as families with means go out and get tutors and they have their children. math works supplemented in seventh and eighth grade, and those without are left without that option. and that's not fair inherently. and so we want children to be able to be on the proper college level math track to be able to take calculus while they're in high school if they so choose to want to pursue a career in math and science and computer science so they then can go and be competitive, particularly in the environment we're in at the ground zero for the technological revolution in the world. thank you. thank you.
10:20 am
supervisor safai and i just want to express my appreciation to supervisor engardio for his leadership on this. you know, we did have a little kickoff event and i mentioned that of all the things that i've done in my career, i don't think anything would be more surprising than my high school teachers than me being a, you know, an advocate for algebra because it wasn't something that i did well with in high school, largely because i didn't you know, i changed school systems years between grade school and high school. and i was one of those students who was really struggling to catch up. so i feel this personally. and now as a district supervisor, i think especially representing mission bay and downtown san francisco, where so many companies need to make sure that we are competitive and we have a workforce that is well prepared for stem education. i think this is part and parcel of that and i think it's appropriate that as apec comes to san francisco,
10:21 am
what is on the ballot with this measure is san francisco's global competitiveness. and we want to make sure that we're continuing that. so i am happy to be a co-sponsor and i wish you well in this, seeing no one else on the roster. mr. clerk, can we open this up to public comment? yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line speak now along the side of the room by the window. each speaker will be allowed one minute. chair dorsey , are we allowing one minute? one minute? this will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when your timer has expired. can we have our first speaker. hello my name is rex ridgeway. i have a granddaughter in the junior at lincoln high and when she was in middle school, we realized she was not going to be able to take algebra one in the eighth grade. so we doubled up in the ninth grade in the summer before her ninth grade year, and she's doubled up. and now is she took
10:22 am
a pre-calculus course at uc berkeley last summer. so you can't tell me she's the only young lady of color of thousands that can do the math. they can last wednesday at the education forum at lincoln high, both the superintendent and the mayor both said publicly that they are for putting algebra one back in the eighth grade. this resolution is to allow the citizens of san francisco to speak, let the citizens speak. and that way we all know this is the right thing to do. thank you . good morning. my name is jeff lucas, algebra one and middle school is a milestone. it's not the end point. it's not the goal. it's just a milestone. math is also the foundation that supports science. my kids were fortunate that they were able to take a math class outside the district. this enabled both of
10:23 am
my daughters to take college level physics and calculus while still in high school. they're both stem majors, despite the district's policy because they had the opportunity to take math outside the district algebra one in middle school is important for all kids. not everyone has this opportunity. we should put algebra back in middle school. i'm preaching to the choir. thank you for your time. good morning. i'm john trasvina, district 11 native and homeowner . we're not here to ask you to set education policy. that's for the folks a couple of blocks away. but we are asking you to use your authority under the charter to elevate the voices of san franciscans. our democratic right have something on the ballot using this process. we appreciate the efforts of the supervisors to give san franciscans a voice in this through through the ballot measure. in one of my many steps away from san francisco, i was president of the mexican
10:24 am
american legal defense and educational fund in los angeles in east l.a. garfield high school, a math teacher, jaime escalante was teaching calculus. people didn't trust that latino kids could learn calculus. we can never have a policy that discourages latino kids from from reaching everywhere they can reach. and that means having algebra in the eighth grade and elevating the k through seven pre k to seven. education so san franciscans want algebra. the suburban kids have it. we want it too. we appreciate your support for this ballot measure. hi. my name is ali partovi. and besides working in the tech industry, i co-founded a nonprofit called code.org, which is now used by tens of millions of children in public schools all over the world to learn computer science as early as kindergarten or first grade,
10:25 am
including thousands of kids in san francisco and oakland public schools and because computer science involves the same abstractions like variables and functions that advanced math includes, i wanted to test to see whether you could teach algebra to younger children. so last year i led a after school club to teach first graders and kindergartners algebra to my daughter lola, who is six, and to her friends and all of the group of kids that i taught it to were able to learn the basics of algebra at the age of kindergarten and first grade. and so i think we should be looking for how to teach algebra to younger kids, not limited to older kids. and this is my daughter. okay. hello. my name
10:26 am
is lola parker partovi, and i'm six and three quarters. i'm in first grade. and i learned algebra when i was four. and it was simple and fun and even though it was hard at first, i kept practicing and it got easier. and i think that if it's easy for me when i'm six, it can be easy for everyone at and where is this page? okay, there's a there exact page at and i and now i'm doing it on a note card. do i get this to show on a notepad and it's easy here. i mean harder on a notepad pad. but i'm going to keep practicing and it will get easier. and i
10:27 am
think there should be no law of waiting until ninth grade because that is a long time. by. hello, supervisors. my name is selina zhu. i'm a parent of two students in sfusd. i'm also a proud of sfusd in my years, we used to support the students coming from the low income communities. i live in chinatown and i actually was fortunate to have opportunity to go to tutoring math tutoring program in the mission district. so i took the bus. i went out there after school and, you know, it was helpful. it helped me a lot. our school also offers that. so why do we assume when we're poor and when we live in disadvantaged low income community, we cannot learn where
10:28 am
we should be learning at eighth grade algebra because everyone when everyone is doing it, why are we delaying it? in san francisco, in a city with so many potentials, we should be supporting our families. there leaving because our city, our school district is not hearing the needs of them. so let's let's listen to them. let's respect their needs. thank you. with great. all right. so my name is adam lujan. i run sf guardian and we are here in support of algebra today, the board of supervisors may not be in charge of the school district , but you do have the power to allow voters to speak. and it turns out that voters are in charge of our school district. so i'm very grateful to you for giving voters a chance to tell the school district exactly what kind of schools our kids deserve. they deserve to have
10:29 am
every opportunity that their peers down the peninsula have down the peninsula. i have a child who took algebra in sixth grade, and i think every child in san francisco should also have that opportunity. we also have a child who had to double up in algebra in high school, in advanced math, in high school, and really struggled during his junior year because the curriculum goes slow, slow, slow up through ninth grade and then expects you to run double time. and that's not fair. that's not good for the kids. it makes it much harder to learn that advanced math. you know, i was one of those kids who took algebra early and it changed my life. my dad had severe depression, was out of work a lot. my mom was a schoolteacher. i didn't have connections if i wanted a good job in life, i was going to have to work for it. and i worked very hard in math. thank you. it's that time. all right. thanks. thank you. good morning. supervisors appreciate your service. thank you for attention to this item. i encourage you all to unanimously support this proposition and
10:30 am
move it forward to the full board of supervisors. my name is lawrence lee. i went to san francisco public schools. like many of your kids and grandkids, and it's a fantastic place. but at the same time, i'm as as supervisor engardio said, we still don't trust them. people call me a watchdog. and you heard just earlier, there are there's districts job jobs to get people on the committees that they don't do. so we have to make sure that the public makes it clear that we have to push to get things to happen. i was a tutor to i tutored chinese american kids to learn how to do english. and this is something that so many people, brown people, chinese american immigrants really want to have happen. and they're afraid to speak up. and so i'm here to get you a sense that so many people want this to happen. so please, i encourage you to vote yes and push this forward. thank you so much. wow i wish i had two
10:31 am
minutes, but i'm going to do this fast. hi supervisor. my name is chanel valley, parent advocate. thank you for addressing this ballot to help bring back eighth grade algebra. my seventh grade is prepared to do this. and i'm i'm not a fan of politics ice in the school, but i'm a full believer that this is all all hands on deck. our seventh grader is not challenged during common core math that he learned in elementary school and he finishes work like for 15 minutes and he's like, he's good to go. and i feel that he needs to do bring back eighth grade algebra along with all the parents that i talked to were like eighth grade algebra back because their kids are not challenged and they are they're into stem like they were in the elementary school they were in, and that we want to proceed to make sure that that they will do eighth grade math algebra, not get bored like my son to be a
10:32 am
lover of science so he can go forward when he becomes in high school. he'll be ready in order to change the world or change san francisco and make it better. thank you. hi my name is lily. it's my first time to speak in english in public, so i try my best. yeah the first i please approve the math, the algebra, literacy option for our support. our kids. my. i'm a mom of three. my two older kids already. and luckily they don't get the chance to learn algebra in the middle school. my oldest one now is she is in college now. she is struggling in math. that's why she told me, mom, our system is failed. my second child is senior now she take the
10:33 am
compassion at high school, but when he tried to apply the calculus at college, they didn't. they didn't pull that. so it's kind of he have to restart it. so he cannot choose his major he now. so i think now the public school system is really, really not helping our unrepresented family. yeah. thank you. please approve the algebra legislation. thank you. thank. hi. good morning. my name is cindy. some ecozone. xinjiang talk. chodang. so insido yang
10:34 am
hong sang di hoc. so lei. for mock consular kiffar. like mo for tiktok go for hong kong peng thank you. hello my name is yan. i need translate some francisco zhong venmo for taichung. go chong. for mo. for buttigieg beyonce go for. i would you call for van t? hi. doing what they giam sorry. cheng lei the python also thai on algebra legislation some fancy gong sun thank you. okay okay. yeah um, can so i'm just helping her to translate this to you so you can hear what
10:35 am
she's asking. are you doing right? okay, so san francisco public high school can supply high quality talents to fill the needs of tech and ai jobs in the city and therefore cannot keep our children employed in the city. it is irresponsible for us, the citizens of this city. please approve the algebra legislation to support public school students. thank you. thank you. see some silly give angela lang or yo. hi. how come your toy so toy so. okay so you going to get your heidi passing to my city so toy so now high burning cat tomicodon tahoe guitar toy so guitar guitar boho
10:36 am
tai ho. so do you see tai hong kong on your chin? how you see how going on soil soil sing yam to my so called young or they now seek toy company hi banning toy toy soldier toy toy. so toy so. live on my face on toto go toy so well while hong kong may see some cities so. so thank you . okay okay. i just want to give her a hug because she's shaking so supervisors. my name is angela. i have a daughter in the school district and i support to
10:37 am
restore eighth grade algebra in sfusd. this is the needs to meet the needs of many families, and i hope. okay, i hope all of us here living in the city can support our children's need to restore eighth grade algebra so they can have the right foundations to build a future to go to college if that's what they want. um, so, so ucs and other schools are still requiring this need necessary course in order for our in order for them to achieve their dreams . and i hope today by coming out here that you will listen to the needs of families in san francisco and restore your eighth grade algebra. children like my daughter, there are not so good in math because her needs wasn't meet by the school district. and i hope you are
10:38 am
listening to us and restore eighth grade algebra in this city. thank you. thank you. hello good morning everyone. i my name is jimmy. i english so i talk in spell cantonese godfrey the chichi. so one high school. yeah you got you got to go home how your you see so you go by your down so okay okay. um so i'm a parent of sfusd student and i'm here today to represent the many families in our city. i
10:39 am
am asking you to restore a free algebra so our kids can be ready if they want to go to uc or other colleges. of course not everyone's going to go to will want to go to college, but you have to have the right foundations so they can choose. they can have options in their future for any career that they choose. math is essential. so i'm asking you here to restore a free algebra. thank you. yeah, thank you. are there any additional speakers on this matter. i now my name is lewis. some of simon. department. dew point. you're my from high up engineer.
10:40 am
you got the whole gang. how. gung ho you can go. so you also. oh, my god. city hall. you got to for fun. like the time. so you got that. you gung ho. they get toys, so you gung ho, high hardoi geography. thank you. okay. okay so. okay. he's in a rush to go back because he's shy. so he is here to advocate for the many families and children's in san francisco. he's saying that in san francisco things are not cheap. everything is expensive. so our children needs to have higher earning career years in the future in order to stay in this city in math, eighth grade algebra is a foundation to have
10:41 am
of high paying jobs. and he said, let's support them rather than taking this away as an option. we have many students who are ready, so let's bring it back and help the ones that are not ready to catch up. there are many ways to do it. and not delaying the eighth grade algebra two later. thank you. there. it appears that there are no other speakers for public comment at this time. thank you. mr. clark and public comment on items two and three is now closed and i will make a motion to file item two and to send item three to the full board as a committee report. mr. clerk, can we have a roll call on that motion? yes, on that motion. to hear and file item number two
10:42 am
and to recommend item three as a committee report. vice chair walton i. walton i supervisor sapphire. sapphire chair. dorsey high. i. the motion passes without objection. thank you, mr. clerk. on unanimous vote. then item two is heard and filed , and item three is sent to the full board as a committee report. thank you, supervisor engardio, and congratulations. mr. clerk. okay. usually okay. okay i. mr. clerk, can we call the next item? yes item number four is a hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance submitted by the mayor to the voters for the march 5th, 2024 election entitled ordinance amending the business and tax regulation code to exempt from real property transfer tax and the first transfer of property that has been converted from non residential to residential use and to authorize the board of supervisors to amend or repeal
10:43 am
any aspect of the property transfer tax, including adoption. additional exemptions from from the tax without voter approval to the extent permit permitted and amending the planning code to allow square footage of office space that is converted to non office use or demolish to be available for allocation to office development of at least 50,000ft!s in gross floor area and to allow demolish office space that is preexisting on a site to be deducted from the required allocation for an office development on the same site. great thank you, mr. clerk. this item, together with our next two that will follow, are sponsored by mayor london breed and we are joined today by her policy director, andres powers to speak on them. mr. powers, welcome to the rules committee. the floor is yours and thanks for having me. so again, andres power with the mayor's office. thank you. chair dorsey and members of the committee, the first of these
10:44 am
three measures sponsored by the mayor is really intended to support our continued downtown economic recovery and also support our housing needs in this city. and toby, the director of joint development from the office of economic and workforce development will walk us through the details of this measure. thank you. thank you. could i have the slide deck up. good morning, chair dorsey, members of the committee. thank you for your time this morning. and topia office of economic and workforce development. i'm here to provide an overview of the proposed ballot measure to waive transfer tax on office to housing conversions and to
10:45 am
answer questions about the measure. this measure was conceived as part of the mayor's recovery roadmap to address the city's office vacancy rates and the impact that the pandemic has had on acutely and abruptly emptying out a portion of our community, our commercial space, particularly in our downtown. the mayor's office and the board have collectively acknowledged that while this dramatic shift in vacancy has been disruptive to our economic engine, there is an opportunity to expand and diversify our downtown by adaptively reusing potentially obsolete office stock as housing . earlier this year, the mayor and the board approved and enacted legislation to remove zoning barriers in order to expand flexible city to accommodate the widest range of uses, removing constraints to these possible conversion opportunities over the summer in partnership with the planning department. also issued a
10:46 am
request for information to solicit feedback and learn as much as possible about what other regular tree or fiscal challenges remain as obstacles to converting office to housing. these responses provided detailed information on actual buildings being considered by owners for conversion. there was nearly unanimous consensus from responders that the transfer tax burden was a key financial impediment to advancing these adaptive reuse proposals. there are other fiscal challenges as well that also merit further analysis and consideration by policymakers, but none of which require voter voter initiative in order to address this this transfer tax waiver is designed to incentivize early adoption of the program by requiring an approval application to planning by january 1st, 2030. and the advancement to construction permits within three years of application on the converted properties would then have time to stabilize and the waiver
10:47 am
would apply to the initial sale. only after the conversion to residential has been completed and with a sunset date of 2054, there are additional good governance clean up components in the measure that allow the board of supervisors the authority to expand or amend the measure by ordinance in the future, which aligns with the way other tax measures are structured in san francisco. the measure also facilitates adjustments to the city's office allocation program by adding demolished and converted office square footage back into the annual office allocation zone and also permits existing office stock to demolish and replace an equivalent amount without securing a new allocation. these adjustments are intended to maximize flexibility in our downtown and also ease the path for seismic updates to buildings when a retrofit is not financially or technically feasible. while most of our office space will and should remain office space to serve and expand our business community
10:48 am
and continue to drive our economic engine, the intention here is to diversify our downtown by providing a variety of options and users who will help support a 24 over seven safe and dynamic neighborhood. thank you. and i'm happy to answer your questions. great. thank you. intopia we are joined by our colleague, supervisor dean preston. supervisor preston, welcome to the rules committee. the floor is yours. thank you. chair dorsey and committee members. and just wanted to make some comments on this measure. and let me just start with expressing my profound disappointment that neither the mayor's office nor our economic and workforce development, nor anyone in the administration bothered to contact us or work with us at all around what might be appropriate exemptions to the transfer tax. let me give a little context for this measure and also uplift a part that was addressed in passing, but it's probably the biggest part of this measure. so for context,
10:49 am
prop i passed with 58% of the vote in 2020, and that was despite a $5 million campaign against it by billionaire real estate interests. as the measure colleagues, as you know, has already raised approximately $300 million for the city and despite a unanimous resolution from the board of supervisors urging the mayor to use the funds for affordable housing, the mayor's fought every effort to do so. the city's housing element recognizes this as a source of affordable housing funds. now, to date, this board has successfully allocated significant resources from prop i to fund critical housing needs. we've set aside $42 million in prop i funds for rent relief, keeping thousands of people in their homes and making san francisco the city with the lowest rate of pandemic era evictions in california. for we have allocated added $64 million
10:50 am
of prop i revenue to housing preservation helping to keep long term tenants in their homes by converting their buildings to permanently affordable housing and prop i revenue was the premise for a groundbreaking $112 million certificate of participation long term debt deal in the 2022 budget, which included the first ever dedicated funding source for site acquisitions and land banking, which allowed the city to buy five sites across the city. accounting for hundreds of new affordable homes, rather than work with our office or for that matter, with any stakeholders, including labor, affordable housing groups or supervisors as to discuss any concerns or proposed amendments to prop i. the mayor's office introduced what can only be described as a reckless ballot measure that threatens to gut prop revenue. i want to be
10:51 am
clear, though. the poorly drafted measure that is before us goes and will be before the voters goes far beyond reversing some of the prop i revenue giving a 100% exemption not just from prop i but from the entire transfer tax created by multiple ballot measures in san francisco . the result is an absurd situation where a homeowner selling their family home will pay a higher tax rate than a multi-million dollar real estate company selling a downtown office building for conversion from offices to luxury condos minimums, for example, were this measure to pass a homeowner selling a $1.5 million home would pay a tax of $11,250. but a seller like presidio bay ventures, which just sold a downtown office building at 60 spear street for $41 million, would pay a whopping total of
10:52 am
$0. instead of what's currently required under existing law, which would be a payment on that sale of a transfer tax of $2.46 million. if they were converting the property from home office to luxury condos, perhaps even more importantly, while this measure purports to be about office to residential conversions, it's actually a trojan trojan horse whose real purpose has little to do with those conversions and everything to do with overturning the transfer tax. more comprehensive, the most impactful and damaging and dangerous part of the of the initiative and the real purpose of the measure is the part that hands to politicians is the unlimited power to reduce amend or eliminate the entire transfer tax by a simple majority vote without notrillioneturning to
10:53 am
the voters. this part of the law authorizing the legislative body to eliminate the transfer tax by simple majority is not even mentioned. and in the mayor's extensive three page announcement of the measure, i think it is telling that that was not even addressed. and similarly in today's presentation, it's buried in the final slide of a presentation that is otherwise about office to residential conversion. so make no mistake about it, this measure is step one of a two step plan to eliminate the transfer tax in san francisco and give an annual 100 to $200 million subsidy to the richest billionaires and real estate investors. finally, i want to emphasize my office remains open to working with stakeholders and city leaders on reasonable amendments to the transfer tax. and in fact, such discussions have occurred and continue to
10:54 am
occur and there is in fact already legislation on at the board for a narrower exemption around affordable housing projects. unfortunately, the mayor chose to place this reckless measure on the ballot without consulting stakeholders or anyone. it's very unfortunate, but i appreciate very much chair dorsey, the opportunity to provide these comments today. thank you. thank you. supervisor preston, vice chair walton. thank you, chair dorsey and i'm just going to be a little brief here, but definitely agree with a lot of statements of my colleagues. supervisor preston but i will even say this as a member of the board of supervisors, that we should not be able to overturn turn the will of the voters and i think that this being in this proposed initiative is definitely something that makes it extremely impossible to support and giving up hundreds
10:55 am
of millions of dollars when we're facing a deficit is not something that i deem feasible for this board of supervisors hours. if it was just about waiving taxes to convert to commercial properties, the language could be specific to that and then we could be having a more serious conversation about this measure. but i do want to read specifically what it says, because i want the voters to understand and with what this says, section 1119 amendment of article, i want to make sure the voters understand and what what is in this initiative ordinance, as it says the board of supervisors may amend or repeal. this article 12 see by ordinance without a vote of the people. it says without a vote of the people, except as limited by the california constitution. so i want the
10:56 am
people to understand that what is being proposed here is to take power out of your hands when it comes to assurances around transfer of property taxes, which have yielded over $100 million for the city and county of san francisco during this deficit time without a vote of the people. i want to be clear about what language is in this ordinance. thank you, chair dorsey. thank you. vice chair walton. supervisor safai. yeah, i just had a couple questions for, i guess either the mayor's office or or an whoever would like to answer the questions on the, on this ordinance. so the thing, the thing that i that i just had some questions about the controller's office talked about the loss in revenue. i mean, because listen, i don't think anyone disagrees. we need to spur the filling of. i mean,
10:57 am
i think it's over 34 million. i mean, you say 30 getting different reports on a daily basis. so it's no question that it's millions and millions of square feet of empty office space. and i think there was a strong support for office to residential conversion. so but the thing that i wanted to zero in on is, is the projected loss of revenue potentially. and i know that there's an argument if you if you encourage investment that that's going to then generate some revenue. but in this instance, it's the decision was made to eliminate it completely. and then and then in in on top of that, it's compounded by the loss of potential business tax revenue because you've converted from office to residential. so the comptroller says it could be greater due to business tax losses. it could range anywhere between. 30 to $150 million over
10:58 am
the 30 year period. and so what's the what's the design or what's the thought about replacing that loss in revenue as we head into a recession? was there conversations around that? thank you. supervisor safai i think what you just hit on is exactly right. so there's a couple of things that i that should be clear. we are capping this program at 5,000,000ft!s of office space. we currently have over 30,000,000ft!s of vacancy. we think that there is a narrow band of office vacancy that will probably not regenerate as office in the future. and what we want to do is maximize the opportunity to convert that obsolete office space into housing. and i think that it's certainly been a robust conversation over the past few years. it was an abrupt disruption to our downtown when we don't know for sure whether the office space that is vacant, there's you know, some of these buildings are 78% vacant, 100% vacant. those are the spaces that we are hoping will be able
10:59 am
to take advantage of this measure and convert to housing and in the future generate property taxes. the and the 30 to 150 million was over the entire horizon of 30 years. if all 5,000,000ft!s were to convet . right? no, i understand that. but then they also say it's it can be compounded by the loss in business tax revenue. and then the cost of upgraded office space that occurs when people leave. so there's a lot of opportunity. i just wonder what conversation was there around replacing the loss in in revenue that that's projected by this? again, i think that there's a little bit of even the comptroller's report is uncertain about whether there will be a loss of revenue. it simply says there could be if there is no no nothing to backfill that that loss of revenue of those 5,000,000ft!s. what i will also remind if we are able to achieve 5,000,000fts of conversion, it means we will
11:00 am
be adding at least 5000 new households to our downtown, which will also help support small businesses, restaurants, nightlife, and again create that kind of 24 over seven dynamic neighborhood that we see in the city in other neighborhoods that have not had the impact that our downtown has. and then and then finally, i guess, just to add on to that, what was the decision around going completely eliminating versus going back to what it was, is that is at 3. it's based on just the sheer, the lack of feasibility. the cost of these conversions is expense of some of these conversions require seismic upgrades. and again the only eligible are office spaces are those that will have been converted. and so just selling an office space is not eliminate your transfer tax obligation. it is only after you have successfully converted that office space to housing that you
11:01 am
will be eligible for the transfer tax waiver in the future. okay. thank you. thank you. supervisor safai. i have a question because i think you might have answered it just in part, but i was curious about i think you said up to 5000 units a ballpark in terms of what kind of progress this may help us make toward our arena targets in the current housing element cycle. what is the expectation of how much progress this will be able to make? we don't i mean, this is not a measure that is really going to significantly change our housing needs. it is part of a solution that that addresses our housing needs. if we could get 5000 units built in our downtown by 2032, that would be fantastic. and i think, again, we're hoping that there'll be early adoption of this program. it's set up similar to similarly to the way we set up the tac to try incentivize people to move forward more quickly and to move directly to construction
11:02 am
documents once they've pulled the permit. but again, they will not be assessed and eligible until after they've converted. so it's not a solution to our housing per se. it's diverse, defying our downtown economy to that point, one of the things this comes up often, as you might imagine, in district six, i think there are some neighborhoods that would like to see the office to residential conversion simply because it would be more mixed use, more use of the neighborhood, more vibrant downtown communities can . i've heard different things when i have talked to people about this, about how the feasibility of it. but i've also heard new york as an example, where there was some there was some efforts around, you know, adaptive reuse office to residential conversions and how that is do you have any perspective on other cities or even elsewhere in san francisco, where we've had success with this approach? so, i mean, it's hard to compare our tax structure to other cities and
11:03 am
states. we just do not mean other cities and states do not have prop 13, which constrains our ability to reduce our property taxes unless it's with a state constitutional amendment . and so it's a little bit apples to oranges when we try to compare to other cities. there are certainly examples around the country that we think are promising and show a creativity in how to incentivize the conversion of obsolete office to housing. i think new york certainly had a significant hollowing out after 2001, and they put in a lot of tax increment to try to help stimulate the conversion of their downtown as well. and they have successfully, i believe, created about 80,000 units of housing in over 8,000,000ft!s of conversion. interesting. okay great. thanks so much. okay. seeing no one else on the roster with questions, mr. clerk, can we open this up to public comment? yes members of the public wish to speak on this
11:04 am
item. should line up to speak at this time. each member will be allowed one minute. those there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when your time has expired. please good morning, chair dorsey. committee members. my name is lamar heystek, president of asian ink. we're located at 1167 mission street in san francisco. so we appreciate the opportunity to talk about the importance of economic recovery. that includes us, our local business enterprises. the lba program is key to the recovery as as has been identified in the report that was commissioned by the city administrator. we would encourage sponsors co-sponsors, as this measure seeks public approval to consider that including the participation of local business enterprises in design, architectural construction can be an incentive that can be included when allocating a waiver of transfer
11:05 am
tax. so we see that local business enterprises can be a pathway for those seeking favorable circumstances to include our community in economic recovery. in the downtown, we urge you to include local business enterprises in this proposal. thank you. thank you. are there any additional speakers for public comment on this matter? there are no additional speakers. thank you. mr. clark. public comment on item number four is now closed. do you have any further comments seeing no one on the roster, i will make a motion to consider this item heard and filed. mr. clerk, can we have a roll call on that motion? yes, on that motion. vice chair walton, just for the city attorney, all we're doing here is saying that this hearing is heard and filed right this in no way says we support an pearson. that's right. all you're doing is saying that the hearing has been heard and filed. you're not taking a position on the underlying
11:06 am
matter. for uh, walton. i supervisor sapphire. sapphire chair dorsey. i dorsey i. the motion passes. thank you, mr. clerk. on a unanimous vote. then item number four hearing initiative ordinance, business and tax regulations. planning code transfer tax exemption is heard and filed. mr. clerk, can we please call item number five? item number five is hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance submitted by the mayor to the voters for the march fifth, 2024 election entitled ordinance amending the administrative code to require a standard ized community engagement process before the police commission change policies or procedures regarding police department operations require to the commission and department to consider the administrative burdens on staff before changing such policies or procedures and to streamline reporting and recordkeeping procedures. modify the department's use of force and vehicle pursuit policy, and establish a technology policy to
11:07 am
allow officers to use body worn cameras and drones under certain circumstances, limit new restrictions on the department's use of technology unless approved by the board of supervisors. streamline the process for the department to install community safety cameras and permit the department to use surveillance technology for at least one year before the corresponding surveillance technology policy may be disapproved by the board of supervisors. thank you, mr. clerk. and mr. powers is again representing mayor breed. mr. powers. the floor is yours. and good morning again, chair dorsey and members of the committee. i'm going to go through a quick overview of the of the ballot measure and then we have the chief of police here as well, who were can help answer questions. if i could have the slide deck, please. so this measure really builds off of the work. first of all, i want to thank the partnership of
11:08 am
supervisors. dorsey supervisor, engardio supervisor stephanie and supervisor mandelman. and this measure, this measure really builds off of the work that we've all been doing to really shore up our police department's ability to deliver better public safety services to san franciscans as we all know, we're down hundreds of officers, but we are working together to turn the tide. we've advanced, you know, funding for new police academies, participation in these academies is the highest that it's been in years. as we've negotiated new mou provisions to increase starting salaries to be the highest of a large city of the large cities in the bay area. and we are also providing retention bonuses is and as a result of that retirements and lateral transfers are down 30. so we are doing a lot of work to shore up and increase the number of officers in our in our police force. this measure complements that work to really make sure
11:09 am
that our our our officers are using their time in the best possible way, which in our opinion is being out in the street, working in communities and supporting public safety. so at the end of the day, the measure is really about taking our officers out of behind, being from behind desks and out on the street and giving them the tools that they need to be able to provide public safety in the 21st century. so this measure has three sections to it . the first section really is about standardizing our community engagement process. so right now, the police commission on when they move forward a new a new effort to amend a department general order, which is the instrument that the commission uses to enact and define policies that govern how police officers and the department function that public process can can really vary in
11:10 am
terms of who it is. that's at the table, what what points of view are considered, etcetera. so this this measure really this provision of the measure is really, in our opinion, about instilling good government and about making sure that the policies that affect every constituency in in the city that those people are given the opportunity to sit at the table and provide provide their feedback. so this the measure would require for a for large policy changes would require that the commission hold hearings and public engagement efforts around the city. really. and it specifies that when we're having these conversations that we need to hear from all stakeholders and the measure goes through a series of these examples, you know, small business owners, residents and the like. it requires that as part of the process of considering public engagement and public feedback, that there's a neutral facilitator to help really make sure that the
11:11 am
public feels comfortable providing their feedback. and it also specifies that that there's a process where the commission and the police chief can forego. so the more for minor changes to policy that the commission and the chief can work together and agree to forego that public engagement process, that extra public engagement process outside of the public commission hearings in order to move forward minor pro forma changes to policy. the second section of this of this measure really is about improving the efficiency of the officers that we have. so right now, in a similar way that the board of supervisors gets a report when a new policy is being considered, that speaks to the budgetary impacts, other impacts that the measure might have. the police commission doesn't have that analog. and so what we what we are requiring is that as part of the for the consideration of new policies,
11:12 am
that there be an analysis that's embedded into the public record that speaks to the amount of time that this would require an officer to be off the street to comply with any requirements that come with that new policy. it sets that in. keeping with that, it sets that that that our goal is that no more than 20% of an officer's active duty should be behind a desk that 80% of their time should be out on the street providing direct public safety to residents and visitors of san francisco. it also provides provisions that that authorize using technology in the city of technology, encourage it, encourages, allows and encourages our officers to use technology. to do reporting. so in certain circumstances, it allows for so long as the incident is captured on body worn camera and that there's sufficient evidence captured on the body worn camera that that visual documentation is sufficient to meet the reporting
11:13 am
requirements. it also replaces right now, there is effectively a blanket, a blanket ban on on the pursuit of by by vehicle. and so this replaces that blanket ban on with language that says that the that the officers after deeming it safe to do so which is a key operative provision that after deeming it safe to do so they can pursue two individuals for violence. so not just any misdemeanor, but for violent misdemeanors and felonies. and then it also provides a provision that sort of proves rides for an override of any future blanket prohibit on technology. we really want to make sure that the officers and the department have the tools that they need today and in in the future to be as efficient as they can be. the third section and this is the last section of the measure provides for some
11:14 am
explicit authorizations for certain things. so the first is that it allows the department, after going through a public noticing and public process to install public safety cameras in the right of way. so this is similar to cctv that you see in most places, not just in the united states, but around the world. so this gives the department the explicit authority to install those cctvs or those public safety cameras. obviously, with the same level of first amendment protections and data retention protections that have been consistent in the 19 b policies that have been moving through this board of supervisors. the. it provides some specifications about how the you know, who has access to this information and how that you know, what the process is to get that information which again is consistent with policies that have recently gone through this
11:15 am
board of supervisors. there's annual reporting to really make sure that that that everyone is aware and is an and that there is oversight over over that implementation. it also provides for right now in in there's a provision in the administrative code chapter 19 b that requires the police department to proactively and other departments. but in this case the police department to proactively get authorization from the board of supervisors before they implement any new technology, any new surveillance technology. this measure keeps that that required current but but authorize his the department to have a one year pilot period to experiment to work through new technologies to see how they work. so when the conversation happens again at the board of supervisors at the end of that one year period, it's actually informed by data and real practice as opposed to conjecture and, and, and sort of and sort of and unknowns as so
11:16 am
again, really in summary, the goal of this measure is to obviously improve public safety here in san francisco. we really want to maximize our our officers time on the streets. so really, we want them to be patrolling and not behind a desk . we want to provide tools to the to the department to sort of better do their jobs. we want to remove some of the unnecessary and duplicative reporting requirements that exist through a variety of our existing policies and then also give them the opportunity to really sort of try and use new technologies in their work. so with that, that's the summary of the measure and the chief is here as am i, to answer any questions. thank you. great thank you. mr. powers supervisor safai. yeah. i'd like to talk to the chief
11:17 am
about the pursuit policy, because he and i have had this conversation often over the last six months, so i'd really want to understand where we are on this and if his feelings are the same that they were when we've been talking over the last six months. chief, you know, the conversations we have so and i don't want to put words in your mouth, so i just would like to hear how the evolution has come and where your position is on the pursuit policy, because i know it's not an easy conversation. it's not an easy. policy to work with, given the realities of being in the second most densely settled city in the united states and what that all entails and believe me, i am i am just as confounded by some of the instances of pursuit and not. so can you please enlighten us and let us know what your position is on pursuit? sure so let me first say what i'm here
11:18 am
to talk about are impacts. and i can explain and clarify current policies and impacts. if this passes by voters. but i cannot take a position of for and against. you've been advised by counsel not to. i'm just kidding . you know the drill. but i will answer your question. it would be good to know because listen, with regard to pursuit, i understand that the policy was amended in 2017. correct that was the last time it was updated on the pursuit policy? no, not the pursuit policy. when was the last time it was amended? i believe it's 2013. i believe somewhere around there. okay. all right. so 2013, it hasn't been changed since then? i don't believe so. okay. so it was it was 2013. and i know that there was a conversation around pursuit solely for instances in which it looks like the threat of life, like if there was a visible gun. i mean, that's the conversation that you and i have
11:19 am
had. so tell me what tell me what the changes is now. so this ordinance, if it is approved, will allow for pursuits on a broader set of circumstances for instance, as was just mentioned by mr. power, misdemeanors that are associated with violence or any felony as it stands right now, the pursuit policy is only it only allows for pursuit on a violent felony. right so there is and just to be clear, only when there's visibly when there's visible a visible gun, that's how you explain it to me in the past. no, no, no. a violent felony. so let's say there's an armed robbery and the suspect is said to have a gun that could be authorized for a pursuit if there is a visible gun, let's say the situation is a car break in that goes bad and the person pulls a gun and that
11:20 am
car break in turns into basically a robbery because force of fear is used that would be eligible for pursuit under the current policy. so the ordinance, the impact of the ordinance would be would broaden that to include all felonies and violent misdemeanors. so the key here in terms of the impact of the department is the management of the pursuit and the balance and the part that was mentioned about when safe to do so is really the key in terms of being able to manage such a broader scale of possibilities of pursuit. so the department would have to basically have strict controls on terms of pursuit management and weighing the gravity of the crime versus the risk to the public, which is what we should do anyway. but when you broaden that scale,
11:21 am
that would be the impact. so why not? why not limit that in the policy? just to focus on drones? because i know that we've had conversations in the past about the concern, the danger for innocent bystanders. when you get into a pursuit, why not just focus then on on putting in drones in those instances or using drones for those instances. so the concern for the public in general is always a factor in any pursuit. drones definitely would have an impact. the use of drones, in my opinion, would have a positive impact because it allows for it would allow for the department to better manage the pursuit. it would allow for capability that we do not have right now in terms of that aerial support. oftentimes at the end of a pursuit, there's often times a foot pursuit or a foot chase or a perimeter as it is, as it stands right now, we have
11:22 am
basically no ability to have any aerial support unless we are lucky enough to get a california highway patrol helicopter or a helicopter from an outside agency. so the impact of that, i believe, would be a positive and it's an enhancement. the drone is an enhancement to answer your question, why not this or that? that's not what the ordinance calls for. but i do think the drone piece of this ordinance would have a positive impact has for the for these policy changes overall has has the california department of justice weighed in on this proposal? have you heard anything? and has there been any conversation between your department and california department of justice? yeah, i believe that the mayor's office has had conversations with the california. the reason i ask is because i know that we had the 272 recommendations. one of them had to do with analyzing racial bias, also use of force. and we haven't completed all of the 272 recommendations as is this
11:23 am
something that the department of justice is comfortable with based on where we are and you can answer that if it's not if it's not you, then, chief, maybe it's someone from the mayor's office. supervisor sapphire andre side with the mayor's office? yes, we've had a number of conversations with the department of justice. and remember that. and they have not expressed an opinion to be clear, one way or the other, on the measure. we they had some some thoughts and feedback that they shared with us. and we incorporate some of that. at the end of the day, the department of justice, as they explained to us, would would weigh in after the police commission adopts the changes pursuant to the ballot measure. and there is flexibility in the language of the ballot measure in terms of how ultimately the commission writes and adopts their updated policies. so obviously, we would be working very closely with the department of justice at that point. so some of it would entail once the once once and if the ballot measure passes, the
11:24 am
police commission would have some leeway in terms of writing the actual policy. ultimately the commission would. this doesn't rewrite the actual dgos the commission would have to rewrite the dgos consistent with the with the direction in the policy. and so in that work, we would work with the commission and with the department of justice to incorporate feedback. is that in every aspect of what's proposed, like vehicle pursuit, use of force, body camera, all of that. yes, with the exception. so the exception and the measure that doesn't go through the police commission are the public safety cameras. so that's not something that is that is germane to the police commission in terms of dgos all of the other changes, use of technology, minimizing reporting , use of force pursuit, et cetera. that all has to go through the police commission, correct? okay. i have more questions, but i see supervisor walton's on there, so i'm going to hand it over to him through the chair. vice chair walton. thank you, chair dorsey. chief just for clarity, again, you
11:25 am
said you can't take a position on a ballot measure, not once it gets to this point. no so there is a point where you can, before it came to the board could have weighed in. but once it gets to this point, i've been advised that i cannot take a position. i can explain impacts, i can explain, clarify policies and all that, but i cannot take a position for or against. but prior actions, you're allowed to take a position for or against, like being at the press conference. i didn't take a position. well, you said you can't do it during this process, but it would seem you being at the press conference as you definitely taking a position. well, two things. that was before this came to the board and i didn't take a position i did not speak at that press conference. you know, i just have to say that this is truly another right wing attempt to address the civil rights of san
11:26 am
franciscans. this this undermines the police commission , which, of course, is in place to protect public safety as well. and it also takes away from the collaborative spirit of working together and most certainly we cannot put out ballot measures in front of the people that eliminate oversight, you know, blanket approval of the use of technology is dangerous. and that's not just for the police department. that's for any city department, but particularly the department with guns and weapons and the department that that can make mistakes just like any other human. and if, you know, if we're talking about technology that is used to surveil people, all residents, citizens of our communities, the most, certainly there should be a process where any policy, any strategy is
11:27 am
extremely vetted because it's going to affect all of our our people. and i'll just say this because i see this measure for what it is and what it's doing, but at the end of the day, going back to supervisor safai is question if we are going to chase people in the streets of san francisco or a dense city like san francisco over petty crimes, which have and can lead to death, then we are we are headed in the wrong direction. and i don't think anybody out there would want to be put in a situation where they lose a loved one or they lose a child and a high speed chase over a pair of pants or something that small. we have those pursuit policies in place to protect everyone for a reason, including including police officers. but i
11:28 am
for one, don't want to get a phone call from a parent out that their child was killed and by any city department or city, any city entity over for a misdemeanor when it could have been avoided. high speed chases and dense cities. we have do and unfair, fortunately will lead to death. so we need to be mindful and careful of policies in place for pursuit. and there is a reason why those policies are in place as we speak right now. thank you. thank you, vice chair walton. i just have a question and i don't know if it's for the chief or policy director powers, but i'm curious, when it comes to san francisco's surveillance technology policies, particularly as they as much as they're restricted of are you aware of neighboring
11:29 am
jurisdictions or jurisdictions in northern california that have similar restrictions or san francisco unique in that regard? there are many jurisdictions that do not have the restrictions that san francisco has that are around us. most jurisdictions don't have those restrictions. okay. um it's. you know, in in some of the work that we do here at the rules committee, i have seen people come in with policy issues that they've been working on for a long time. and i do understand the, the importance of maybe streamlining some of that in one piece of this that i really do appreciate is the ability for the police department to move quickly. i recall that when in november of 2021, when there were a lot of organized retail theft activities here in san francisco, it played out in union square. but one thing that
11:30 am
happened and these episodes of organized retail theft were occurring all over the bay area. one thing i recall from that was that the cities of i believe it was palo alto and walnut creek immediately responded by investing in surveillance technology cameras, license plate readers and other. they were very nimble in response to some of the organized retail theft activities and that san francisco, because of our the way that our policy is written, was restricted on that. do you any thoughts on some of what played out in 2021? in 2021, there were restrictions that prevented us from being nimble. of course, the board later changed some of the 19 be requirements. so we do now have the ability to do more, more in terms of use of live
11:31 am
surveillance in certain certain instances. so we did not have that at that time. okay, great. um, i think supervisor for you some more questions and then vice chair walton. yeah i appreciate that chief straightforward widnes, i guess what i'm thinking is, i mean, these are really early. i guess the only thing i would say is these are really, really important conversations to have. it's hard to have them in a very condensed, even if we spent an hour on this, it's very difficult to have this. and i know some of these things have been discussed over time. i mean, we've worked on those together. chief i mean, you chair the audit organized retail crime working group with me, and we've spent a lot of time talking about pursuit. we spend a lot of time talking about cameras and drones and how they can be impactful. i just and it's good to hear from mr.
11:32 am
powers that that the voters then will come back to the commission to then promulgate the final dose. as you state. so i guess it's i don't know if this was asked, but in terms of the body camera work, in lieu of written reports, s what crime area would be used in terms of limiting the written report and using the body camera in lieu of the written report. so i can understand that a little bit better because oftentimes i note from work that we've done in the past with you all, there's multiple perspectives. and so just having body camera footage is not exactly sure how that works with sunshine requests. it works with internal investigations means like how does that all play itself out as proposed? here we have the
11:33 am
impact based on the concept that has been presented to this committee through this ordinance is efficiency. and with body worn camera, we can't supply that documentation. we can't supplant the need to do reports. the question becomes how can we be more efficient and what impact would that have on the availability of officers? times to be in the field and still get the necessary documentation for crime reports, for use of forces or whatever other administrative requirements that require that documentation? so it would still have to be developed. this policy is not prescriptive, as i read it, in terms of knowing exactly what the impact would be. that would still have to be developed. what i would tell you, i will tell you is the department is always looking for ways to be more efficient with their time. there is now the body worn cameras are fully implemented in this department.
11:34 am
there are technology changes that we have at least made inquiries about that would allow dictation services to be added to body worn cameras. so those things are out there, whether they are the right set of technologies that remains to be seen. but but the impact that is to drive efficiency. so we have more time in the field for our officers. can i. oh, go ahead. and i would. and i would just add to that. thank you. thank you, chief. so for certain incidents that specifies that they must continue to be in continue to be in writing, so in the use of force policy, for example, it specifies that if a if a weapon was drawn down or someone was injured or complains of injury, it specifies that that must continue to be in writing that report. so it really sets the higher level caliber of incidents that must be in writing. and for others, it says that they can be
11:35 am
replaced. it doesn't say that they will be, but they can be replaced with technological means. and that details of that and how exactly it gets sorted out and what the procedures are would get would get hashed out at the police commission. can can can i ask just a general question on while you're still up there? mr. powers, was there an attempt and the reason i say this because i know the chief back in 2018, when we were talking about tasers in the city and there was an attempt to go straight to the voters as the chief went on the record and said that he didn't believe that promulgating policies through voters when it came to policing operation policies by voter majority was the right way to go, that it should be the responsibility of the department working with the commission. and you, chief to set that policy. it was a better practice. was there an attempt to work with the police commission and the department to try to upgrade or work on these policies before taking them straight to the voters? because i've heard from a few and they've said that the that particularly what it comes
11:36 am
to the vehicle pursuit and some of the other some of the other items, that there is an ongoing concern in, they're in the process of reviewing those policies now. so was there an attempt to work with the commission and the police chief and the department to do that through. policy adjustments at the commission rather than taking it straight to the voters? so we worked very closely with with the police department and many of the ideas that are in this measure were the result of a of many months of engagement that we had with actual line officers. the mayor went and visited many of the morning lineups that many of the stations to really solicit feedback specifically from the officers on the street. so we did do that engagement. with regard to the commission itself. we worked with some of our commissioners to sort of have a conversation about these about these ideas. but it's clear that the current composition of the
11:37 am
commission was not amenable to many of these ideas. and how about you, chief? you stated that it was a national best practice to work through the department and the commission to promulgate state policing, operational policies. so what has changed? i know you said you can't take a position, but you're standing here speaking about a ballot measure rather than working through the commission and the department. i'm standing here speaking about impacts. nothing has changed because whatever policies that come out, if this passes, will still have to go through the police commission. i mean, that's always true and that's true in this case as well. okay. all right. i mean, here's one other question, i guess, for the for the mayor's office. i'm not you since you're not driving this, chief, have has there been a conversation with the bar association of san francisco? i mean, they sent us a letter to our committee stating that they believed that this would be very
11:38 am
vulnerable to legal challenge. have you have you spoken with them at all? we have not. no. the question was whether it would work with the bar association and or we spoke with them or heard the mayor's office has not. has not, has not. and did they reach out to you in advance of. we received the letter that we my understanding at the same time that you received. okay. got it. but they had not contacted you or tried to work with you in advance. okay um, i don't have anything else right now. oh, sorry. i see supervisor walton, supervisor walton, vice chair walton. thank you, chair. dorsey just a quick question, chief, because i heard supervisor sapphire's question about what this does with the police commission, and you said it doesn't change the way policies are vetted through the police commission. then why is this being proposed? what i said is if this passes, policies will
11:39 am
still pursue policy will still have to be approved and adopted by the police commission. whatever comes out of this would still have to be approved and adopted by the police commission. and why are we putting this on the ballot? that's not a question for me, supervisor. i don't think i just had to let the public know. well what you're asking me, that's not i said that nothing changes. what is going to the ballot. so i think one thing, you know, we have to and this is not on you, chief, we have to let the voters we can't mislead voters. we have to be honest about what kind of conversations we're having, particularly when we have them in public forums and public settings. and chair dorsey, when you quote cities like walnut creek and palo alto being more nimble, you should also make sure they don't share san francisco values. they definitely more right wing and conservative areas. so we should be trying to compare apples to
11:40 am
apples when we talk about data and when we compare san francisco to other cities, we should not be using places that have been less amenable to people of color, that have been less amenable to our lgbt community, that have been less amenable to making sure that equity is a focus. so let's make sure that we compare apples to apples when providing data and information about race policies in other cities. otherwise, you're misleading our communities. thank you. vice chair walton. and i think seeing nobody else on the roster, why don't we open this up to public comment. yes members of the public wish to speak on this item. should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed one minute to speak. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder
11:41 am
chime when your time has expired , you may begin. good morning, supervisors. tess wellborn. public engagement is a good idea, but this obstructs the police commission's authority. it allows all all vehicle pursuits which we know have led to injuries and deaths and property damage and setting a limit on administrative time is unreasonable. where's the data? it appears to be a mayor's attempt to control and limit the police commission. it massively expands police surveillance and prevents the board of supervisors from weighing in on any new police technology until the technology has been out for a year, haven't we learned anything from the cruise episode ? and this is ridiculous. it also makes it more difficult for the police commission to limit the use of force or even hold officers accountable. this is
11:42 am
not something that was crafted with the public at and is an attempt to override the police commission. please. so comment. good morning, everyone. my name is joel haley. i'm the director of the criminal justice program at the aclu of northern california. we are a coalition of 19 groups and advocates represent san francisco's diverse communities opposing this measure sponsored by mayor breed. this measure asks the voters to weaken oversight, undermine accountability, and reduce the transparency of a police department that continues to struggle with racially disproportionate use of force. racist traffic enforcement and several incidents of racism, homophobia and scandals. this ballot measure seeks to capitalize on concerns about crime and exploit san franciscans discomfort with increasing visible poverty and suffering like other myopic
11:43 am
efforts, this measure doubles down on investing in policing as the first and primary tool to address real challenges and leaves little room for evidence based solutions such as mental health care, substance use treatment, affordable housing. san francisco voters should reject this measure because its proposed changes are misguided, ill considered and simply bad policy. we urge them. may begin. good morning, supervisors. i'm julie tran from the bar association of san francisco. i'm a resident of district eight and i'm here on behalf of the bar association. i can't possibly summarize our 16 pages in the one minute afforded to me except to say that we are deeply troubled by this. it is rare for the bar association to weigh in as as we have in the
11:44 am
situation we have very quickly, because this didn't come to our attention until more recently dug in to provide you with specific facts, specific problems, specific conflicts with each of these provisions presented by the mayor. and honestly, as someone who has been a part of working groups for at least i don't know, chief , if i've worked with the chief for since 2000, since he was named, we have great collaboration. we've made great progress and it's as though none of that has been recognized or celebrated in this ordinance. there are dangers as parts of this that we really need to stop and take a look at and consult with the department of justice before we proceed further. thank you. are there any additional speakers. supervisors my name is matt susq. i'm a district three resident. i was here just to
11:45 am
listen, but i thought this was such an interesting conversation. so first thing, supervisor walton, i totally agree with your point about pursuit. it's so dangerous. i mean, we read about one in nob hill just a couple of weeks ago. right. but i think one thing that's super interesting is the idea of deterrence. right our police force i talked to police officers on a weekly basis. if we can pursue if we can use drones, that's a deterrent that can be a great thing. that means there may not be injuries, there may be less crime. so that's one thing that i think is super, super important. but second is our allocation of capital right? like like the like the chief said, sometimes a helicopter comes in. i don't even want to know how expensive that is. but a drone, i mean, a two, three, $400 drone can help people. let's use that for mental health. let's use that for social work. let's use that for substance abuse and not just use it to tack on more and more costs. let's be more efficient like the chief said he wants to be. thank you. thank you. are there any additional members of
11:46 am
the public would like to make public comment? there are no additional speakers. thank you, mr. clerk. public comment on item number five is now closed and i would just to the particular the surveillance technology portion of this, i do think while it is important that we have civil liberties guardrails on the use of surveillance technology, i will just say as a matter of principle, i do not believe that it is an appropriate topic for governance by local government. these are property crimes especially operate across municipal and county borders. and i want to make sure that it is as difficult to get away with crime in san francisco as it is in south san francisco. i want to make sure that our residents and businesses and visitors are as well protected in san francisco as they are in neighboring jurisdictions. and i think we have a surveillance technology policy that is
11:47 am
uniquely onerous and difficult. i appreciate the portion of this measure that addresses that and gives us as a city, flexibility for the police department to move forward and to have time to still come back and meet the obligations of the 19 b with the process of this being vetted and considered as a matter of policy , obviously reasonable minds will disagree on this, but voters will have their say on super tuesday. and those are my thoughts. and supervisor sohi, thank you. i'll just say that i think it's a i think it's you know, i've enjoyed working with the chief over the last six, seven years. i think he's been very thoughtful in terms of his engagement when it comes to really important policy issues. i think it's been unfortunate that there hasn't been any engagement on this. you know, other than what mr. powers
11:48 am
described. and i take them at their word that they did that they did the work that they described, and that's fine. it seems some of these things are contrary to what we have heard from the chief over the last few years in this body. put pushing for reform and justice reform. i think you can have accountability and justice reform at the same time. i believe and you know, the use of technology can be extremely helpful in what we're trying to pursue in terms of holding people accountable. i think it needs to be vetted and we had a policy and i know back in 2022, we passed together the conversation about use of private cameras. and there's a process that that went through. and i think that that has been done in a in a thoughtful way. i think some of this feels a bit rushed out. and unfortunately, it's contrary to what i've heard from this chief over the last 5 or 6 years in terms of wanting
11:49 am
to work in a more collaborative fashion so that that's the thing that that feels a little contra vary along with the progress that we've made with many of the recommendations from the department of justice. we have a quarterly hearing from advocates and those that are concerned with demographic data when it comes to policing counters, and particularly with regard to racial bias. i don't know how all that's impacted by this and what's being put forward. and i know that that is still of great concern in this city and it should continue to be. but that doesn't mean that that then gets conflated with we need to hold people that are constantly going into our stores and taking items and goods. and i think that we can do both at the same time. so i feel what i've heard about that once the voters weigh in that there's still work that needs to be done with the with the police commission and the department. i'd like to learn a
11:50 am
little bit more about that. but because i'm not exactly sure other than and i heard other than with regard to drone policy and i get that. so anyway, i reserve my judgment on this. ultimately again, it is, i think, very unusual for the bar association to weigh in. we got an extensive letter going through this item in a very intricate way, giving many, many different recommendations. so i think that this will be an ongoing conversation and i look forward to learning more about what i've heard here today. but i am i am very concerned with some of the projection of this in opposition to or contradicting what the chief has talked to us about in this body in this chamber over the last 5 or 6 years. thank you. great. thank you. supervisor safai vice chair. waltham. thank you, chair dorsey. i just wanted to say in reference to safety, i feel 100%
11:51 am
more safe in this amazing city than i do in walnut creek in palo alto. vice chair walton okay. seeing no one else on the roster, i'd like to make a motion to consider this item heard and filed. mr. clerk, can we have a roll call on that motion? yes, on that motion. vice chair walton, deputy city attorney pearson. just same question. this is in no way, shape, form or fashion saying this is this vote. we support this deputy city attorney, ann pearson. that's right. this vote is just to confirm that the hearing was held and closed. thank you. i walton, i supervisor sapphire sapphire chair dorsey i dorsey i the motion passes without objection. thank you, mr. clerk. then the item is heard and filed. and mr. clerk, can we please call item number six? item number six is the hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance amended by the mayor to the
11:52 am
voters for the march 5th, 2024 elections entitled ordinance amending the administrative code to require recipients of aid under the county adult assistance program who are reasonable believe to be dependent on illegal drugs, to be screened for substance abuse and to participate in appropriate substance abuse treatment where recommended by a professional evaluator to provide that failure to comply with the drug screening evaluation and treatment requirement. without good cause will render a recipient ineligible for assistance under cap program allows cap recipients who are ineligible for assistance due to noncompliance with the screening evaluation and treatment requirements to receive a housing stipend or access to in-kind shelter for 30 days beyond the discontinuance of their aid. with possible extensions as necessary to prevent eviction and establishing a special fund to support the costs of the substance abuse screening and treatment program using savings realized from implementation of the program. thank you, mr.
11:53 am
clerk. and we are joined by andres powers. long time no see. mr. powers. the floor is yours again. the last time. i promise you. for today, at least. so this. so this third item sponsored by the mayor. again, andres power with the mayor's office on this third item, which would require cap beneficiaries to participate in appropriate substance use disorder treatment in order to maintain eligibility for benefits. just as a as i did in the prior presentation when i. trent rhorer, the director of the human services agency, is here for and can speak to some questions. but i'll give a very brief overview of the of the measure before that. so obviously these are statistics that we all are well aware of, but just for just to recap, the fentanyl epidemic that we are sort of in the middle of here in san francisco is like something we've never seen before. last year we lost 647 people to this
11:54 am
epidemic. so far this year we've lost 623 putting us on track to far exceed last year's numbers by the end of the year. so this is a very sad and somber time. and it in our from our perspective, it we need to be doing everything that we possibly can looking at different things to sort of help address this crisis from from every possible angle. just as a little bit of context, just to make it clear that that this measure, as we talk about, really is about getting people connected to care. that is the goal. the goal is not to cut people off from their benefits. in fact, we want people to stay on their benefits. we also want people to have a pathway to a better life, a healthier life, a more sustainable life for themselves and for their community. but just for context, you know, here on the on the behavioral health side of the house, we in san francisco, we currently serve 25,000 people with mental health and addiction issues on an annual basis here in the city since 2018. the
11:55 am
budget for behavioral health has increased by 85. and our budget specifically for substance use disorder in that same period of time has has more than doubled. so we are leading here. i put this this this information here to show that san francisco leads with services. we lead with options, we lead with compassion. but at the end of the day, we need to help people get better and we need to help people and we need to hold people accountable. so as as a quick recap, this measure simply requires those receiving cap benefits. and so again, cap benefits are for single adults. so these are not families. these are not seniors, these are not veterans. these are single adults, requires them to participate in a program. if there's if they're deemed to have a substance use disorder, it does not require testing, as has been sort of incorrectly stated in the media. and this
11:56 am
only applies to legal drugs. so it does not apply to legal drugs. so it doesn't apply to alcohol and cannabis and such and just as an important note, this measure does not require sobriety in order to receive funding. so you don't this is not about getting tested. and if you're if you're tested clean, then you get benefits. that is not what this is about. all of this measure does is requires people to participate in a program as quick summary of the of the cap programs that we have a sense of sort of the universe that we're talking about. there are about 5200 people here in san francisco that are currently enrolled as i mentioned before, single adults, not families of seniors. about 20% of the population is homeless. and they receive up to $712 in annual benefits or sorry, in monthly benefits. the law that we are using to advance this provision
11:57 am
is explicitly authorized under state law that that governs general assistance that allows local jurisdictions to condition benefits on reasonable participation, not sobriety, but reasonable participate in a program. so just to encapsulate when someone is coming in to sign up for or to recertify for benefits today as it stands today, they currently go through a screening process and there are current requirements that it can get imposed upon them. so it's not it's just you come in the door and you get money. right now you're screened for employability. if you're employable, you're required under the under the existing program to participate in job training exercises. and there's an existing structure that requires regular updates to the human services agency and the counselors on their staff to sort of certify that compliance. so that structure currently exists. and for people who are
11:58 am
not employable, the requirement is that they that they apply for ssi through the federal government. and again, the city, through our counselors at human services agency, helps people through that process so that i frame this here just to make it clear that there are current required amounts that apply to individuals. and if they don't meet those requirements, they're deemed ineligible. so this measure on top of those that that existing screening for employability adds a new an additional screening for substance use disorder. so it's an initial conversation with with with a counselor at the human services agency. if that individual is deemed likely just as and this again is not to testing is not you know, as i've read in some paper, you know, blood tests or urine analysis, there's none of that. if you're if you are if you're deemed to possibly have a substance use disorder, you would be referred under this measure to a professional that will help work
11:59 am
with you to figure out to determine in fact, whether you do have a substance use disorder or and to help work with you to figure out exactly what is best for you and clarifying point is that if the program is not available free of cost so if there's not capacity, see if the program does not exist, then under state law and under this provision that we're implementing, your your benefits are are are not impacted. and so some examples, just briefly of the type of treatment services that we that that could be required. so it's anything from counseling, you know, going to see a therapist group therapy. many people just need medication so it's it could be medication it could be going into a detox program. um, and then for some people, it could be a residential setting of some sort where you're gone for a number of days or a couple of weeks and more. so it really the this is really a very wide range of, of
12:00 pm
services that measures very clear not to stipulate what is right for a particular individual. that's a decision that's made specifically between the professional and with and with the client. and so just just to recap here, the goal of this program, um, at the end of the day is about saving lives. is it about keeping the people that are dying on our streets today alive with hope of, of, of having a more productive future? we see this as a as a way to provide an incentive to encourage people into care. sometimes people, as we've heard, as the mayor has talked about in her public remarks, people many people need encouragement. they need a nudge . and we see this as being a tool to do that. um this is not about whether you participate in one day. you don't show up and you're immediately kicked off. there's this is an active conversation that happens between the city and with the and the and the participant. and we offer multiple opportunities to keep people engaged. engaged
12:01 pm
will full non participation is the key word here. it's the willful non participation that allows that would that would discontinue you from cap benefits but you could reapply right away. so this is not a you know once you're discontinued it doesn't it's not a ban you're not put on a list. this is really about really encouraging people to participate late and giving people as many options to do that. so with that as i mentioned before, trent rhorer, the director of human services agency, is here to answer any specific questions on the program. thank you. thank you. mr. powers and supervisor safai. thank you, mr. powers. i have a few questions. so i think part of the response is there's been a lot of confusion and i appreciate you trying to clarify that today, because there are some statements made by mayor breed that everyone was going to get drug tested and then everyone was going to be screened and then everyone needs
12:02 pm
to be in treatment. i mean, just even recently in an interview with the examiner, the words were, everyone needs to be in a treatment program. um, so i guess what i want to start with is, is so it reads that the department shall require all adult recipients of aid under the general assistance pays. com and sip program to undergo screening for substance abuse when is determined by the department that there's a reasonable suspicion on that to believe that the individual is dependent upon illegal drugs. maybe that's not a question for you. maybe that's a question for mr. rohr. how do you define reasonable suspicion? i mean, let's start there, because that seems to be the key word. thank supervisor rhorer, executive director, human services. so the wording reasonable suspicion is actually from the state welfare institutions code. got it. the language in the state laws specifically says counties may may require substance abuse, may require assessment should there
12:03 pm
be reasonable suspicion. so we pulled that right from the state law to be consistent with what we're legally allowed to do. so what does that mean? tell me how it works in practice. so that's what i'm trying to figure out. so if i walk in and i maybe someone's on cannabis and their eyes are like, how do you know what's the reasonable suspicion? yeah. so the state of new york has this law. los angeles county also has this. so we'll learn from them. but but currently the process prior to this, everyone on the county adult assistance program gets assessed for employability. right. part of that employability assessment is actually a screen single question about substance use and whether or not. that's right. okay. so that would be identify that would be one way potentially to meet that reasonable suspicion suspicion standard. there's no longer a suspicion if they say they're addicted. right, then it's there confirming that's sure. so like i said, we're learning from other state. it's new york in
12:04 pm
particular, la and also our colleagues at the department of public health to develop what those screening instruments might be, not only the initial screen to sort of determine the reasonable suspicion, but then the secondary assessment, which is a much more thorough conversation, an assessment. so survey screening of the client with a clinician to determine whether there's a substance use disorder that would then necessitate that individual being required to go to treatment as a condition of their benefits. but this is this is a big departure. i mean, you've been the head of this department for 23 years or more, and this has never been done before in san francisco, correct? we have not availed ourselves of that. we've we've never availed ourselves of this part of the state law. so i know you're very thoughtful when it comes to this. i guess i still am a little confused how you're going to make it happen. what are you going to do? how is it actually going to be implemented? because i think that's the thing that will really determine for folks. i get it. the headline is people
12:05 pm
already assume that people are coming in are drug addicted, but at the end of the day, what is what is the department going to do to make sure that this is administered in a fair and equitable way? because it's based on suspicion at first? sure so just we're not assuming that everyone who's coming into the county adult assistance program office to apply for benefits is addicted to drugs. but but that's how it's been talked about in the public. that's that's however people talk about it is not my i have nothing to do with that. i'm telling you factually that's how the mayor of san francisco has talked about it. everyone will be drug tested. everyone will be in a treatment program. i'm hearing different things from everyone. one will be required to be in a treatment program who has a substance use disorder. that's a disabling condition. that is correct. right but that's not that does not mean that every of our 5300 people who are currently receiving county assistance is addicted to drugs. of course, that's not
12:06 pm
what that means. of course. so i'm trying to get at the root of what suspicion. so there are several counties in california. i'm sure there are several counties in california supervisor that have opted into this provision. la being the biggest. there's probably 70,000 people receiving general relief in los angeles. they have this process. they do. they use a survey instrument, they have a referral path. it's really not unlike what we do now. so right now we assess for employable me if someone has a disabling condition that might make them eligible for federal disability, we require them to apply for federal ssi. we link them with an ssi advocate, but it might be a nonprofit legal provider or someone in house to help them navigate that process. similarly, if someone is employable, we might refer them to a job training program with a nonprofit provider. we they might engage in workfare, they might go to city college. it's a referral path and a monitoring of compliance. it's really not
12:07 pm
that much different with this. they would be referred to either an in house or a non profit clinician to assess the degree of substance use disorder. and if it's determined that it is to the extent where it's a disabling condition and it is an addiction, then they would be referred to a treatment that would be most appropriate. given that kind of addiction. and what we do is just like we do with the other activities assigned to people on the county assistance program, we require a monthly reports of successful participation. did someone show up for their workfare assignment three times this week? yes or no? if no, then we go down the path towards potential discontinuance. same with job training and same with this treatment initiative. i'm sorry, let me just ask it a different way. is the state law and the definition of reasonable suspicion by broad enough that if you come in for your initial screening and i am hsa worker and you've come in and i suspect because of my training and i say
12:08 pm
i believe this person is addicted to drugs, is that enough to meet the threshold for reasonable suspicion? not what it says. so i'm asking. i'm asking. so it's reasonable suspicion. so it's not person presents and the hsa employee says you're addicted, you go it's there is a given check, a box check a box check a box. i think that this person needs further assessment taught by a professional clinician to determine whether or not the individual has a substance use disorder. so they refer them to step process. it's an initial to the clinician. correct. and then the clinician is going to make the determination. but but the initial reasonable suspicion is the hsa worker that right? yes. just just like we have a reasonable suspicion that someone might be disabled, someone might say, hey, i'm not disabled, i can work. we say, well, now we're going to refer you over here. you might have issues with with mental illness and we're going to have you professionally assessed. let me ask another question then. is
12:09 pm
there a plan within the hsa to have an internal training for your staff? yeah. so what we need to figure out supervisor is we what we currently have physicians on, on staff. we have psychiatrists, we have nurse practitioners, etcetera. so whether they could be trained internally, whether we hire a new classification of worker, someone who is a professional in the field, or whether we contract with nonprofit treatment providers to provide that clinical assessment or whether we want to or whether. step one yeah. or whether we work with the department of public health as well to provide that clinical. yes we will certainly have to train staff on how reasonable suspicion is. so this might require additional expenditures within your department to administer this program. i heard you say you might require new staff, you might require new training. yeah, well, every every employee who works in the county health assistance program is trained on the on the cap policies and procedures. and so we would just
12:10 pm
add an element to training that already exists. the reason i ask is because we have we had just last week at the board meeting, there were public employee workers that are inspectors and is part of their job description to do inspection. however now they're being asked to be involved in in inspection for illegal vending. it falls under the rubric of what they're doing , but it's an additional requirement for some of those, at least from their perspective. we were hearing that for the first time. and so i just i'm thinking about implementation now. you're taking it to the voters. you're asking for this authorization. it seems as though if it's already state law and it's something that do you need to go to the voters for that? if it's already state law, the state law is the city attorney can opine, but the state law allows counties to, it says may right. counties have the have the option to institute this. the state welfare institution code lists a lot of
12:11 pm
things that counties can opt into. counties can opt to time limit public assistance. for example, two, three months out of 12 counties can establish their own residency requirements . how those are met. so there's a lot of options. and so in order to partake in order to take one of those options, one or many, yes, it's felt we need a local ordinance change. correct can i. through the chair, madam city attorney, i understand that this is state law and it allows it says counties may is it necessary to go to the voters if it's already in state law and says they may avail themselves of this aspect of county assistance. deputy city attorney anne pearson i don't believe it's required to go to the voters. the board and the mayor could pass legislature to amend the ordinance to include this requirement. this ordinance is just being put on the ballot as a but do you have to have an ordinance? the county has to take some steps to incorporate this option as part
12:12 pm
of its program. but could that be done administratively? i mean, could could hsa if they're already availing themselves of all these requirements, could they say that we are promulgating a new administrative procedure, we're going to access this part of state law? do they need an ordinance for that? i believe they do need an ordinance for that. the cat program is regulated now by an ordinance because it's the board of supervisors that makes the sort of fundamental policy choices about the program. the department has the authority to interpret those or flesh them out a little bit by regulation. but this is a fundamental policy choice whether to implement this this option that the state law provides. okay. thanks for that clarity. and then supervisor just to speak to that specifically. so so that is that was the advice that we received to that basically an ordinance would be required to implement the policy. i think the question that you were getting at was sort of the implementation detail and sort of how it would specifically be administered by
12:13 pm
by staff. the measure on purpose has a delayed implementation date, so it purposely does not take effect until january of 2025 to show should the voters support this. it gives us nine months not only to plan for it to the extent that there's a budgetary impact in the budget year, but also to make sure that staff and our procedures are well established and people are trained up for it. okay. thank you. i guess i'm still and i appreciate the one thing that i heard was, you know, check a box. if someone's self identifies sounds like there's going to be some initial assessing isn't of reasonable suspicion based from your staff and then a referral. to clinically trained professionals to make a final determined nation. sounds like that is going to require training of your staff. sounds like it's going to require potentially new staff and collaboration with the department of public health. and it sounds like it could there could be a price tag associated with this proposal. so through
12:14 pm
the through the chair to the controller's office, has there been an analysis done on what the cost to the overall budget might be? thank you. supervisor janice lee, the office of the comptroller, as noted in the letter, there are potential administrat costs associated with the implementation of this. as we've heard from the executive director of the human services agency, we there's a lot of outstanding questions as to what that will look like. and we will continue to update our letter as more information becomes available. um so not no information yet because there's not enough information. it's really hard to make a determination. there's different costs associated with contract out this staff with hiring new staff as well, right. but it sounds like i think there's an agreement that there's going to be cost associated with this program and its implementation. the reason i bring that up is because we're having this ongoing conversation and this body and at the budget committee , as we face a half a billion
12:15 pm
and rising budget deficit, i think it might rise to 7 or 800 million. and that's something that's going to be with us over the next couple of years. so it's something to consider as we're approaching these new programs and how what choices are going to be made within i mean, you could also argue that there could be cost savings in other areas as well. and i think that's what the controller's office will analyze is. i'm just curious, i'm still stuck on the reasonable suspicion on the training of staff and how it's going to be implemented. but i see supervisor walton on there. thank you, mr. chair. thank you. supervisor safai vice chair walton. thank you, chair dorsey. director rohrer, just a quick question, because you alluded to new york and la and i think supervisor safire was getting to this, but did they institute these policies via ordinance or
12:16 pm
going to the ballot or how how did they come about? i know that it's a new york state law, so new york requires that their structure of how they administer human services program is different from the way we do it, in that they're state administered, not county. so they they change state law to do that. los angeles county has had this, i believe, since 1998. and i don't recall how that they instituted. i do know that our we've made a lot of changes to the ga program over the last two decades, one of which was a establishing the cap program itself and related requirements. and that all went through the ordinance process through deliberations at the board to change the local, the local ordinance that governs cap. thank you. so it's consistent with that. i do got to say, i think compared to la and new york to san francisco is a much better comparison than walnut creek and palo alto. but, you know, i do just want to say this on record, that maintaining cash
12:17 pm
aid for residents in need is crucial in addressing the complex issues they face. remove financial support could exist hate crime and overlook the deep rooted trauma contributing to substance abuse rather than solely focusing on substance abuse treatment. a comprehensive approach should prioritize mental health services without adequate mental health support. addressing the root causes become challenging potentially leading to a cycle of relapse and program reentry. history shows that cutting funding for mental health services in san francisco resulted in an increase in substance abuse investing in mental health facilities is essential for stabilization and functional recovery. forming the foundation for effective substance abuse treatment. a strategic emphasis on mental health initiatives ensures a more holistic and
12:18 pm
sustainable solution to the drug epidemic. we have never fully implemented our mental health strategies. we should first work towards this before we penalize our most vulnerable residents. we have a broken medical system, and i'm concerned that if we do not address mental health services, we won't be addressing the root causes of the individuals need that that end up turning to substance abuse. what does this mean for san francisco if we only work on substance abuse treatment and the program does not provide culturally competent mental health services? and do we have enough providers that will be able to meet this demand and drug testing, people receiving general assistance can be seen as irresponsible for several reasons. firstly, it assumes a presumption of guilt. treating all recipients as a potential drug user without evidence. this
12:19 pm
approach can perpetuate stereotypes and stigmatize those in need, discouraging them from seeking assistance, examining the historical context of the war on drugs further emphasizes the inefficiency and inefficacy of punitive measures. the war on drugs, which gained momentum in the 70s, focused heavily on criminalization and punishment. despite decades of aggressive policies. it failed to significantly reduce drug use or address the root causes of substance abuse. instead it contributed to the mass incarceration of thousands of nonviolent offenders, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. a more comprehensive and compassion sionate approach, such as investing in our own mental health sf should and would be a better solution. this is another
12:20 pm
attack on our poor san francisco residents. we are going to create more crime by taking cash aid away from individuals or discouraging them to seek support and health. this is a violation of everyone's basic rights to privacy. this would mean that our investment first should be in mental health services, followed after an extensive screening for substance abuse screening. if we band-aid our residents by mandating a program, what will happen upon completion? do they just come back out and continue to go in and out of these programs, much like the san francisco general mental health beds? i agree that we need to address the drug crisis. but first, let's support our mental health initiative and get our residents the help that they need right wing policies of attacking the poor have not led to less drugs or less drug use
12:21 pm
on our streets, in our communities. thank you, chair dorsey. thank you. vice chair walton. i just i just want to make do you have some stuff you want to say? okay. i just want to i just want to end with i appreciate supervisor walton's comments. the thing that that the thing that i still walk away with a number of questions. we talked a little bit about it from the comptroller's report that it could increase cap administrat costs it could increase cost to the city. and i'm very concerned about the actual lack of or the ability to get enough people into treatment because we don't have that available treatment right now. and the increased cost to provide housing to support discontinued cap recipients, it's good to hear that there's a pathway for them to get back. on if they choose not to participate because we certainly
12:22 pm
don't want to create have unintended consequences of increasing the number of people that are unhoused. but there's definitely there's definitely going to be costs associated with this. and then the idea of clearly defining what reasonable suspicion means and how that will be administered, i still walk away with some questions on that. i do appreciate director raw, explain more and that there's going to be some more research done looking at how other counties have administered this. but it sounds like there's some additional work to be done as we think about this, if it is to be passed by the voters. i believe that we need to expand the number and the amount of treatment in the city. there's a lot of people suffering with addiction and there is an overlap with this audience. people on general assistance and those that need treatment. and i think that should be a significant focus of what we're thinking about as we approach
12:23 pm
this, because because there's an ongoing need for expanded treatment in our city. so i'll just end with that. thank you. great. thank you. supervisor sapphire. and i would just before we open it up to public comment, just i appreciate that of the measures we are considering today and i think for the upcoming election, the one that i think has the most potential to save lives is this one. and i think this given the backdrop of a record shattering crisis and drug overdose deaths, the more that we can do to support people and incentivize people to seek recovery, to be honest about what it is and one other thing that i appreciate about this approach is recognizing that there's a multitude of things that constitute what what treatment and recovery may be. it can be mutual help programs. it could be in outpatient, it could be inpatient. i think there's a lot of things that we can do. the
12:24 pm
national institute on drug abuse , authored in 2018, a principles of drug addiction treatment, a research based guide and in that there is a principle in there that treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective. and the language that nida said in there was that sanctions or enticements from family employment settings and or the criminal justice system can significate only increase treatment entry retention rates and the ultimate success of drug treatment interventions and beyond that, i've spoken with policy experts, professor keith humphreys at stanford. i think is a good example. paypal dr. humphreys talked to me about you know, even when we measure what would we would what we would call a voluntary intervention in , in a treatment program, if you scratch beneath the surface, it's voluntary. but you know, i'm going to lose my career, my job, my kids, my wife, any number of factors are making. it
12:25 pm
may appear to be voluntary, but often what's happening is there are real life consequences that those of us in recovery would recognize as hitting bottom or being in a situation where there is an an intervention that can be made and when we talk about these kinds of interventions, given the era of fentanyl, we're talking about something that i think is life saving in ways that it has not been in decades past. so with that, seeing no. one else on the roster, mr. clerk, can we open this up to public comment? yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed one minute. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when your time has expired. you can approach the podium. good afternoon, supervisors. tess wellborn. i hope you will join me in congratulating the mayor on a creating a program that will send more people to the streets.
12:26 pm
they will lose their housing and this new program that we can congratulate the mayor for will also be funded by sending those people to the streets. that is the statement in the in the legislation that it will be funded by people who are kicked out of the program. now, remember, we have no data here presented that the how many people od'd when they were single adults on essentially welfare. we have no information about that. but we do see it's another aspect of the war on drugs and the war on poor people . i noticed that it did leave out seniors and families. i guess they don't use drugs. thank you. are there any additional members of the public for public comment? there does not appear to be any additional speakers. thank you, mr. clerk. and then public comment on item number six is now closed and i'd
12:27 pm
like to make a motion to consider this item heard and filed. and just for everyone's edification, that does not mean support or opposition to the measure. it is just we are hearing it and filing it. mr. clerk. yes. on that motion, vice chair walton, a walton supervisor, sapphire sapphire chair. dorsey a dorsey i the motion passes without objection. thank you, mr. clerk. then item six is heard and filed the initiative. ordinance administrative code, substance use, abuse screening. mr. clerk, please call the next item. yes item number seven is a hearing considered the pros initiative, an ordinance submitted by four or more supervisors to the voters for the march fifth, 2024 election, entitled ordinance amending the administrative code to require the chief of police to adopt a foot and bike patrol strategy for the police department. great. thank you, mr. clerk. supervisor safar is the main sponsor of this item. supervisor safai. the floor is yours. mr. chair. i'd just like
12:28 pm
to continue this for one week. okay um. or to the next. i don't think we have one next week. deadlines to submit this to the department of elections. let me find. no, this is just an ordinance petition. it's not a charter amendment. there's still. i think there's still time. i understand that. yeah that's what i conferred with city attorney. uh, it is only a hearing on our behalf, but we have a deadline to submit a notice of hearing to the. okay. we can just have the hearing and file it. that's fine. we can just quickly call it, hear it and file it. that's fine. okay. i'm sorry. i didn't realize it was the actual hearing. i apologize, mr. clerk. okay do you do you want to anything you'd like to say about it? no. we can just file it. okay shall we open this up to public comment? yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be
12:29 pm
allowed one minute. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when you your time has expired. there does not appear to be any public speakers at this for mr. clerk. public comment on item number seven is now closed and i would like to make a motion to consider this hearing heard and filed. yes. on that motion. vice chair walton, i. walt and i, supervisor sapphire i sapphire chair dorsey. hi, dorsey. i the motion passes. without objection . thank you, mr. clerk. item number seven is heard and filed. and can we please hear item number? can you please call item number eight? item number eight is a charter amendment for staff to amend the charter of the city county of san francisco to establish within the charter the department of emergency management the position of the director of the department and the director's qualification and appointing authority at the elections to be held on march 5th, 2024. thank you, mr. clerk.
12:30 pm
supervisor safai is the main sponsor of this item as well. supervisor safai yes, yours. i'd like to amend the date only to november 5th, 2024, and then just continue this item to the call of the chair. so make a motion to amend the date to november 5th, 2024. okay. we have a motion to amend the date to the november election of 2024 and seeing no one on the roster. mr. clerk, can we open this up to public comment? yes on that motion. members oh, excuse me. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line them to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed one minute. those there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when your time is expired. there does not appear to be any public commenters for this matter. thank you mr. clerk. public comment on item number eight is closed and i think this will give us i will say i there were
12:31 pm
a couple of concerns that i had had about it, but i think that knowing that we have our time to work on this gives us the opportunity to do that. so i will reserve judgment on that. and what i why don't we make a motion to on why don't we make a motion to on the on the motion that's on the floor. yeah. as continue the item to the call of the chair as amended. yes on the motion to amend to the november to the november 5th, 2024 election and to continue the matter as amended to the call of the chair. vice chair walton walton. i supervisor sapphire, a sapphire chair. dorsey a dorsey i the motion passes without objection. thank you, mr. clerk. do we have any further business that completes the agenda for today? great. thank you all. we are adjourned. thank you. thanks .
12:32 pm
12:33 pm
12:34 pm
12:35 pm
please stand by for the san francisco local agency formation commission meeting of november 17, 2023. >> the meeting will to order. welcome to november regular meeting of the local agency formation commission. our clerk is alyssa somera and i like to thank the staff