paschen and good afternoon mayor breed. thank you for being here for question time, and my question relates to overdose prevention in september , 2022 at your urging at our urging, you joined the department of public health in announcing the city's first overdose prevention plan. wellness hubs were described as the cornerstone of the plan and your administration committed in a public hearing last october. opening one of these hubs in the tenderloin no later than june. 30 2023. in december last year against the urging of this board , you closed the tenderloin center, the city's only safe consumption site without a replacement overdose deaths have skyrocketed in the months that followed, just as advocates warned at the time would happen . there is fortunately broad agreement that the city can and should open, a wellness hub following the new york model in which services other than on site consumption are funded by the city. however your administration has not moved this process for word in the tenderloin. even though there is

paschen. i just i think it might be maybe point of clarification on the what we're considering on item number 60. um. is it my understanding that that's not going to be tabled? no, we're we're voting on emotion, or do we have a live motion to divide the question? sure. okay is it appropriate to make a motion to send it to committee? given that this is this is for this. this item is on the adoption without committee reference. i think the fact that we're having a debate about whether to go forward with this. i think this is what we have committees for you most certainly are. welcome to i mean, we have a motion that goes before you and the motion to go before you is too. prove it. um but you are welcome to senate committee. now this is interesting. insofar as it is not a resolution. it is a motion. and different boards of supervisors has a duplicated this internal parliamentary procedure differently, but i think where we last landed in 2016 was says it takes six votes to send it to committee. bu

paschen. i just i think it might be maybe point of clarification on the what we're considering on item number 60. um. is it my understanding that that's not going to be tabled? no, we're we're voting on emotion, or do we have a live motion to divide the question? sure. okay is it appropriate to make a motion to send it to committee? given that this is this is for this. this item is on the adoption without committee reference. i think the fact that we're having a debate about whether to go forward with this. i think this is what we have committees for you most certainly are. welcome to i mean, we have a motion that goes before you and the motion to go before you is too. prove it. um but you are welcome to senate committee. now this is interesting. insofar as it is not a resolution. it is a motion. and different boards of supervisors has a duplicated this internal parliamentary procedure differently, but i think where we last landed in 2016 was says it takes six votes to send it to committee. bu

supervisor paschen i.z supervisor preston preston , i supervisor ronan ronan eyes supervisor self i e. self i e absence supervisor stephanie stephanie i supervisor walton walton. i supervisor chan chan i supervisor dorsey. dorsey i supervisor and cardio. and cardio i and supervisor man delman. mandel men i and supervise herself. i so if i e i there are 10 eyes. alright. the . motion adopting the revised report passes and then on the motion with the revised report, same house i should say resolution with the revised reports. same house, same called the resolution is adopted. madam clerk, could you please go to our last three pm special order? items 27 through 30 comprised the final three pm special order. this is a public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a conditional use authorization for proposed project at 11 60 mission street involving a change of use from public parking garage to fleet charging for portions of the ground, 2nd and 3rd floors of an existing four story public and private p

paschen. i just i think it might be maybe point of clarification on the what we're considering on item number 60. um. is it my understanding that that's not going to be tabled? no, we're we're voting on emotion, or do we have a live motion to divide the question? sure. okay is it appropriate to make a motion to send it to committee? given that this is this is for this. this item is on the adoption without committee reference. i think the fact that we're having a debate about whether to go forward with this. i think this is what we have committees for you most certainly are. welcome to i mean, we have a motion that goes before you and the motion to go before you is too. prove it. um but you are welcome to senate committee. now this is interesting. insofar as it is not a resolution. it is a motion. and different boards of supervisors has a duplicated this internal parliamentary procedure differently, but i think where we last landed in 2016 was says it takes six votes to send it to committee. bu

thank you, president paschen for that. so uh, to the first issue we have compared our commands to have, actually, we had, um matrix. the . consulting firm that city higher too. conduct our staffing analysis three years ago. thanks four years ago now, um they did compare us to other departments across the country like size larger, um i don't think any smaller but basically medium to large departments and you know what their data and analysis show that we were. about where we should be, and we were bigger than some smaller than than some but based on. the work that we have to do in our city that they their analysis was that we were about where we should be as far as the command staff, so some of the changes in structure and thanks for giving me an opportunity to talk about this because i think it it it's always a good thing to have this discussion and yeah, remind ourselves and others that um, we do have to consistently look at our we built the way we should be built for. challenges that are in front of us and the job that's

paschen and good afternoon mayor breed.escribed as the cornerstone of the plan and your administration committed in a public hearing last october. opening one of these hubs in the tenderloin no later than june. 30 2023. in december last year against the urging of this board , you closed the tenderloin center, the city's only safe consumption site without a replacement overdose deaths have skyrocketed in the months that followed, just as advocates warned at the time would happen . there is fortunately broad agreement that the city can and should open, a wellness hub following the new york model in which services other than on site consumption are funded by the city. however your administration has not moved this process for word in the tenderloin. even though there is undeniable need providers are ready to open sites and supervisors, including myself, are in full support. to date. the department of public health has not even issued an rfp to open and operate a site in the tenderloin. i asked about this in question time when

letter to several different city departments, um, to the mayor to supervisor ronan and president paschen as president of the board, as well as the directors of the department of building inspection, the director of recreation and parks department , the director of the real estate division of the general services agency and the assessor recorder, each of whom has a ah , a separate role in in each of these in some area related to personal 36. um. i will note during the april 20/6 hearing. i personally mentioned that eminent domain may be appropriate here. that was my personal opinion and not an opinion of the board and not something that is being recommended in this letter. that was something that i said during the hearing. um. our goal and my goal in writing. this letter was to um was. to help this issue get toward resolution and a series of mission local articles and an article in the chronicle in recent weeks have pretty clearly shown in a increased hostility levels between the parties to this appeal that have nothing to do with this appeal. but, um, it's definitely something that we're

thank you, president paschen for that. so uh, to the first issue we have compared our commands to have, actually, we had, um matrix. the . consulting firm that city higher too. conduct our staffing analysis three years ago. thanks four years ago now, um they did compare us to other departments across the country like size larger, um i don't think any smaller but basically medium to large departments and you know what their data and analysis show that we were. about where we should be, and we were bigger than some smaller than than some but based on. the work that we have to do in our city that they their analysis was that we were about where we should be as far as the command staff, so some of the changes in structure and thanks for giving me an opportunity to talk about this because i think it it it's always a good thing to have this discussion and yeah, remind ourselves and others that um, we do have to consistently look at our we built the way we should be built for. challenges that are in front of us and the job that's