tv BOS Full Board of Supervisors SFGTV October 13, 2020 10:00am-2:01pm PDT
opening and a wonderful learningafternoon. am i on? yes. good afternoon. welcome to the september 22, 2020 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madame clerk, would you call the roll? >> thank you, mr. president. >> supervisor fewer: present. >> supervisor haney: present. >> supervisor mandelman: present. >> supervisor mar: present.
we'll come back. >> supervisor preston: -- >> okay, we see you, but there is sound difficulty. i'll let operations know that. we see that you did say aye -- present. >> supervisor peskin: madame clerk, supervisor peskin is present. >> supervisor ronen: present. >> supervisor safai: present. >> supervisor stefani: present. >> supervisor walton: present. >> president yee: present. >> clerk: all members are present. >> president yee: okay. supervisor preston, are you able to get on?
>> clerk: we see him, but we don't hear sound. >> president yee: maybe he can get help from somebody. >> clerk: yes, i'll work on it. >> president yee: thank you. please place your right hand over your heart. would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic, for which it stands, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. thank you. on behalf of the board, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgovtv. who records the meetings and makes the transcript available to the public online. are there any communications. >> during the covid-19 health
emergency, members of the board participated in this meeting remotely through live video conference to the same extent as though physically present in their legislative chamber. the board recognizes that the novel coronavirus has made the need for public access more acute and believes it's essential that all communities with and without the internet will have the following options to be able to participate remotely in this meeting. we will accept your correspondence. if you're sending by u.s. mail, address the envelope to san francisco board of supervisors, city hall, 1 carlton goodlett place, san francisco, california. if you're sending via e-mail, send it to bos at sf gov.org.
you can watch on 26. due to a broadcasting delay when you're ready to provide testimony, make sure you turn down your television. instead, to listen to the proceedings, you can use your touch phone. you can listen and provide public comment. telephone number is 1-415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d., 146 750 0645 # #. you'll have joined the proceedings as a listener. we're working hard not to leave anyone out of the proceedings and if you're experiencing connectivity issues, we have someone standing by at the clerk's office. he can help you in live time. we have interpreters present.
thank you so much, madame clerk. >> clerk: thank you. >> president yee: okay. thank you, madame clerk. before we get started, a friendly remy der for all the supervisors to mute your microphones when you're not speaking to avoid audio feedback. supervisor preston, a sound check? >> supervisor preston: yes, thank you, can you hear me this time? >> president yee: perfect, perfect. now you can mute yourself [laughter]. madame clerk, i understand we have received an aecccommodatio request from the member of the public who wishes to provide public comment. we'll open public comment at this time for the individual.
madame clerk, is the person ready? >> clerk: yes, mr. president, he is. operations, please unmute the speaker. >> my name is -- i'm a disability advocate. despite what the board -- these are not public meetings and this is -- coronavirus pandemic. the disabled seniors, people with low vision, are excluded. we're not allow to visually participate due to limitations in the microsoft system that is set up. and it doesn't matter what is said here, this is not a public meeting. the minutes are being censored. [inaudible] what i said was that text messages between mayor breed and chief scott of the san francisco
police department were exchanged -- article documenting numerous 911 phone calls about the homeless being present on our streets. the mayor calling and calling the police chief and using our text to submit these complaints repeatedly. this is -- [inaudible] -- that be changed -- [inaudible] additionally, wait 25 minutes on hold to leave a public comment as a disability accommodation. that 25-minute hold period is clearly an effort to -- participate here as well as other members of the public. and additionally, there is no information on the meeting website that disabled people can call in for disability accommodations. it just says services which is not the same thing. lastly, i want to speak in support of dean preston and his
legislation to ban no-fault evictions during the pandemic. that is a great move forward as well as walton's legislation for the act to stop 911 harassment phone calls based on racial profiling. >> president yee: thank you, caller. madame clerk, we're arranging this accommodation. today, we're approving the meeting minutes from the august 12, 2020 rescheduled budget and appropriation meeting and the august 13, 2020 and august 14, 2020 meeting minutes at the special budget and appropriations committee meetings which constituted quorums of the board of supervisors. is there any changes to these meeting minutes? okay. seeing none, can you -- can i have a motion to approve the minutes as presented?
>> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> president yee: moved by ronen and seconded by peskin. madame clerk, could you call the role. >> clerk: yes. on the minutes, supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> president yee: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye.
>> supervisor peskin: aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: without, objections will be approved after public comment as presented. madame clerk, let's go to the consent agenda. please call items 1 through 25. >> 1 through 25 are on consent. these items are considered to be routine. if a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. >> president yee: okay. i don't see anybody on the roster, so madame clerk, please call the roll on items 1 through 25. >> clerk: on items 1 through 25, supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye.
>> supervisor walton: aye. >> president yee: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: all right. the ordinance are passed unanimously. now that we have gone through 25 items already, we have about 80 more. madame clerk, can you please call items 26 through 28 together. >> clerk: items 26 through 28, comprise the motion to affirm the categorical exemption from further environmental review as determined by the planning
department. the motion to conditionally reverse the categorical exemption determination. the preparation of finding to reverse the categorical exemption. all for 178 seacliff avenue. it's important to note that the items had their public comment requirement satisfied during the board meeting of september 15 and we're continued to today for consideration by the board. >> president yee: thank you. we have before us the motion for an appeal for the proposed project as 178 seacliff avenue, which we heard and filed during our meeting last week as madame clerk just mentioned. this is related to the planning department's review that the project is exempt from the categorical quality act.
supervisor stefani, do you have comments you would like to make? >> supervisor stefani: yes. colleagues, last week i requested a one-week continuance of the proposed project at 178 seacliff avenue. i said at the time and before that it's important we get this right. i requested the continuance because i thought supervisor peskin and mandelman raised questions i felt needed clarification. today i would like to ask the city attorney to clarify some points for the record. the first question, do we have the attorney jensen here? >> yes, you do. >> supervisor stefani: i want to thank, too, supervisor peskin for working with me and working out all of the issues that were raised. just for the record, city attorney general, can you explain the difference between a historic resource and contributor to a historic
district? >> yes, through the chair. ceqa defines historic resource to include a number of items, in particular, that list includes a resource that is listed in or determined eligible to be listed in the california register of historic resources. in this case, as i believe all the members of the board know, the seacliff neighborhood is eligible to be listed in the california register of historic resources and, therefore, the department has determined that the seacliff district is a historic resource in this case. so i know there was some discussion last week about whether it was the individual properties or the neighborhood itself, which was the historic resource. but in this case, based on the language of ceqa, it's the district that is the historic resource. an individual house can be an individually identifiable ceqa resource, but in this case, it
is the district itself, the group of approximately 230 homes that is the resource that is being analyzed for ceqa purposes. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. another question that came up, what about future construction, impacts and wondering if ceqa allows you to speculate about future impacts to the district and standard of foreseeable reasonable plays into that? >> again, the answer is, no, ceqa forbids speculation of the kind that you're suggesting here. this comes up in the context of impact, which is one of the exceptions to the use of exemptions under ceqa. and cumulative impact can be looked at, but there must be impacts that are looked at in terms of present, future and
reasonably foreseeable future projects. so ceqa specifically limits the kind of future speculation you can do. so, for example, the board can't consider whether it might be possible that some day down the road a speculator could buy an entire block of properties in this neighborhood and propose to raise all the houses. that is not reasonably foreseeable and probable under ceqa. if you knew that had been proposed and permits were in the pipeline, that would be something that could be considered, but ceqa doesn't allow that kind of speculation, because it's not reasonably foreseeable. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. and finally, with with regard to what is before us today, will this change or damage the historic district? >> no, and that's a determination made based on the
facts before the department. the department has determined for a variety of reasons the loss of this particular contributor will not damage the historic resource as a whole and that is because this contributor does not in itself display character-defining features that make it particularly important example of the features of the district, for example. as an example, if you were looking at the civic center historic district and you proposed to eliminate a small feature, such as a statue, you can imagine that wouldn't eliminate or damage the history of the overall civic center historic district, but if somebody proposed to destroy city hall which is sort of the centerpiece of that district, that would have a much more significant impact on the district. here we have a house, not a particularly good example of the
work by the architect who designed it. and the home itself is a mixture of architectural styles and does not show the kinds of attributes that are important for the delineation of this district as determined by the department. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. i don't have any further questions. i feel that we went through all of them in the interim. and it is my opinion this project complies with the planning code and the residential guidelines to map, height, scale with the street and is compatible for the forms and features of the surrounding buildings, setbacks and lot sizes and neighboring properties and will provide plenty of space for light and privacy. a number of important questions were raised last week. today, we heard the answers from the attorney jensen. one of the questions raised was whether the demolition of the existing home which is recognized as a contributor to an eligible historic district is
automatically a significant impact under ceqa. the answer is no, this is simply not the law. ceqa requires us to look at why the existing home is considered a contributor to a historic district. the reason this home is a contributor because it was built at the time this district was developed. and it contributes to the broader pattern of development of the district. it was asked at what point could removal of the contributor cause significant impact on the historic district? the question of impact is made on a case by case basis and the district comprised of around 300 contributors, it is clear that the removal of one is not going to affect the integrity and defining characteristics of the district. when the historic district is
the historic resource as is the case here, the question is whether the project as a whole, the demolition of the existing home and the construction of the new home, would cause a substantial adverse change to the historic district? in other words, the project would need to render the entire district no longer eligible for listing in the california register. in this case, the answer is that it does not. with the answers to these questions clear with me, i'm now certain that the scope of environmental and historic review of this project was correct and i would like to move items 26 forward and table 27 and 28. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee and supervisor stefani. just for the purpose of moving this conversation forward, i will second supervisor stefani's motion. let me just start by thanking
supervisor stefani for engaging me and deputy city attorney jensen yesterday for what you all just heard right now. and i still believe that this is rich people on rich people violence. and i still believe that this is the unnecessary removal of a structure that probably has old growth redwood, but has become abundantly clear as a matter of law that is not a consideration for us under ceqa. the questions that -- i don't want to put words in supervisor mandelman's mouth, but the questions that we asked last week with record to the status of the contributor to a potential district, i ran the city attorney and supervisor stefani through the paces about
yesterday and got satisfactory answers. and those answers fundamentally are that this particular individual structure is not worthy as a contributor to a district. and we used a lot of analogies and the deputy city attorney jensen spoke to some of those. we used much more graphic analogies in our conversation, if you cut off a foot and leg, when does a body stop being a body? but i will say that i think as to this particular individual case, the questions have been asked and adequately answered and so i am -- thank you, supervisor stefani, for putting up with myself and supervisor mandelman. it's very rare that in a ceqa case anybody goes across district borders, but making
sure that the best of the rest, our historic resources and designated and potential districts are treated and remain with integrity is profoundly important. so, thank you. and with that, i believe we have come to the right conclusion here. i was very moved by mr. map's -- or at least animated by mr. knapp's remarks last week which took me down this trail. but i do believe this in this particular case the historic merits of this particular building at 178 do not rise to the level and, therefore, i am happy to second supervisor stefani's motion. >> supervisor fewer: yes. thank you, president yee. i want to just say in the discussion that happened last week, this is the district that
borders my district. most people that live in the seacliff have a strong affliction to my district. i am in that district a lot. i walk through it a lot. i have a lot of friends that live there. i think the discussion last week, the thing that struck me was the conversation with supervisor mandelman. because i think i see a little differently. i see it that there goes one, there goes another, there goes another and there goes another. and i concur with what supervisor peskin said. then when do you start cutting off a arm, leg, foot, finger, and no longer have a body? in this particular neighborhood, there is a feeling in that neighborhood, it is -- and it is defined by these homes that are older. and they are large. and it is a single-family home and replacing another single-family home i know, and
doesn't give us more housing, but to say it is not a good example -- when i went by the home, i actually think it does add to the character of the overall neighborhood. and so i think that what we heard is a good argument to actually revisit some of these guidelines, because otherwise we will just have, know, death of neighborhoods by a thousand cuts and we will no longer be able to recognize ourselves as a neighborhood. and so having said that, i'm sorry that i am going to have to not vote in favor of what this motion is, but actually, i am -- the reason i do it is not because -- it is because i think we are getting to a point where we need to discuss this as a board because it will be a
thousand cuts to a neighborhood and we will no longer -- and it needs to have a larger than neighborhood discussion. i'm sorry not to be able to support the motion, but i wanted to explain myself. thank you, president yee. >> president yee: okay. i don't see anybody else on the roster. there has been motion made to table item -- >> supervisor peskin: don't worry, i'm still going to vote for the budget. >> supervisor fewer: i appreciate that. >> president yee: i'm sorry. did you say something? >> i think supervisor peskin was just making a comment, mr. president, but as you were saying, you were reviewing the motion that was made. >> president yee: has nothing to do with what i'm saying, right? >> clerk: no sir.
>> president yee: approve item 26 and table 27 and 28 made by supervisor stefani, seconded by supervisor peskin. will you please take the role. madame clerk? >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. on the motion to approve item 26 and table 27 and 28, supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> president yee: aye. >> supervisor fewer: no. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye.
>> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> clerk: there are 10 ayes, one no, with supervisor fewer in the dissent. >> president yee: thank you. 10-1 vote. item 26 is approved and items 27 and 28 are tabled. so madame clerk, let's go to items 29 through 52 -- well, wait. yes. >> items 29 through 52, comprise the matters that are associated with the city's budget. item 29 is the budget and appropriation ordinance to appropriate all estimated receipts for departments of the city as of july 30, 2020 and item 30 is the salary ordinance for both items for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2021 and
2022. items 31 is the resolution to approve the fiscal year 2020 through 2021. budget of the office of community investment and infrastructure operating as the successor agency to the san francisco redevelopment agency and approving the issuance by ocii in the bonds in aggregate amount not to exceed $15.4 million for the purpose of financing a portion of ocii enforceable obligation its. items 32 is ordinance to beautification and graffiti cleanup turned approximate. 33 through 39 are seven ordinances from the san francisco public utilities commission that benefit the public utilities commission certain business lines. item 33, ordinance to appropriate proceeds were revenue bonds, state loans, grants and wastewater revenues and to deappropriate $391.4
million for the sfpuc. item 34 is the ordinance to appropriate $348.4 million from proceeds from revenue bonds resolving loan funds -- revolving loan funds for the water enterprise capital improvement program for fiscal year 2020-21 at $132.1 million and for 2021-22 at $212.7 million and to deappropriate $3.5 million of water capital project funding to water fund balance in fiscal year 2020-21 to be appropriate and reappropriate $14.4 million in fiscal year 2020-21.
to place $238.5 million of revenue bond and state loan funds of state grant funds by project on controller's reserve subject to the certification of the availability of the funds. and at the board's discretion and to adopt the california environmental quality act finding. item 35 is the ordinance to appropriate $260.3 million of hetch hetchy revenue, low-carbon fuel standard and power and revenue bonds for the hetch hetchy capital improvement program for fiscal year 2020-21 at $94.3 million. and for fiscal year 2021-22 at $165.9 million. and placing $142.9 million of power bonds and $108.6 million of water bonds by project on controller's reserve subject to the availability of the funds and the discretion of the board and to adopt the california
environmental quality act findings. item 36 is the ordinance to appropriate $4.3 million of clean power sf revenue for the capital improvement program for 2020-21 at $1.89 million and 2021 at $2.4 million. the issuance and sale of tax exempt or taxable power revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness by the puc. not to exceed $142.9 million. to finance the costs of various capital projects benefitting the power enterprise pursuant to the charter and retirement of the outstanding power enterprise paper to declare the official intent of the commission to reimburse itself with one or morrishance withes -- more.
taxable wastewater revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness by the puc in an aggregate principal amount not to excite $349.9 million to finance the costs of various capital wastewater projects benefitting the wastewater enterprise. pursuant to proposition e, to authorize the issuance of wastewater refunding bond and the retirement of outstanding commercial paper to declare the official intent of the commission to reimburse itself with one or moand to take actio with the item. item 39 in an amount in the to exceed $347.1 million to finance the costs of various capital water projects benefitting the water enterprise pursuant to
proposition e to authorize the issuance of refunding bonds and the retirement of outstanding commercial paper, to declare the official intent of the commission to reimburse itself and to ratify previous actions previously taken in connection with this item. item 40 is an administrative code amendment to adjust the medical examiner fee amount. item 41 is an administrative code amendment to authorize the department of administrative services to impose a fee for reproduction and notary services. item 42, the refunding of certificates of participation for multiple capital improvement projec projects. or for other property as determined bit director of public finance or $97.5 million.
item 43 is ordinance to deappropriate $4.6 million of series 2010a refunding certificates of participation, prior reserve funds and to appropriate $102 million of refunding certificates of participation series 2020-r1, including deappropriated funds and $97.5 million of one or more series of refunding certificates of participation proceeds for fiscal year 2020-21. item 44 is add minute tev code amendment to establish a digital signature fee and update other fees to the current amounts in the county clerk office. item 45 is to set rates for patient services. item 47 is an approval of the expenditure plan for the department of homelessness and supportive housing fund. item 48 is a resolution to concur with the controller's
establishment of the consumer price index of 2020 and adjust the access line tax by the same rate. item 49 and 50, two resolutions that concur with the controller certification that certain work can be performed for the following services. the budget and legislative analyst, the custodial security including fleet security, main frame system support, security services public works, security services for the human services agency, the department of homelessness and supportive housing, the public utilities commission, full services for jail inmates and sheriff's department. assembly of vote-by-mail envelopes for the department of elections. shuttle bus services for the airport, citations, paratransit,
parking meter collections, security, towing, transit shelter cleaning services for the municipal transportation agency, and custodyial and security services for the port. and security services for human services agency, general services agency, city administrator and the mayor's office of housing and community development. item 51 is resolution to it authorize the san francisco public library to accept and extend $809,000 in-kind gifts services and cash monies of the friends of san francisco public library for a variety of public programs and services. and item 52, resolution to suspend the city financial policy in administrative code certification 10.61 for fiscal year 2021-22 to authorize the city to spend selected none recurring revenues described in that policy on recurring expenditures.
>> president yee: okay. supervisor fewer, you go first. >> supervisor fewer: yes, president yee, i'd like to sever items 29 and items 45. thank you. >> president yee: we can do this right now. supervisor fewer, i know this is going to be your last city budget that you'll be handling. like you, it will be my last city budget. and it was quite a way to close out our term, don't you think? although, each budget i have worked on in the last eight years on the board has had sort
of unique challenges. this time we really had once-in-a-lifetime challenge of trying to pass a balanced budget during a global pandemic. and unsurprisingly we're faced with another budget deficit that was, again, balanced on our lowest paid and most vulnerable workers and residents placing the board in more difficult position to resolve certain budget consumptions and balance competing priorities and interests. not only with the administration, but among 10 colleagues who don't always see eye to eye on every issue. however, i feel that we truly rose to the occasion and we were able to starve off cuts to critical programs that serve most vulnerable seniors and families. i cannot emphasize how important it is for us to plan ahead.
during our last recession, the board of supervisors did just that by creating a number of reserve funds. funds that are key to our recovery today. i'm proud of the crucial investments we have made in the past few years. and this year's budget will help us recover more quickly and set us up for a more equitable future. during the time of economic crisis, we need vital services to get people back on their feet and ready to jump in when we reopen again. shows us that every recovery in history was accomplished by a critical public investment. cuts only worsen and prolong recessions. we would not be here if it was not for our bold leadership of chair fewer.
i know i've said it over and over again. one of the best things i ever did was make her chair of budget while i have been president. and i don't want to not mention -- i want to mention the tireless chief of staff chelsea, thank you to the both of you and your team. i want to extend my thanks to my other colleagues on the budget and appropriations committee. supervisors walton, supervisor ronen, supervisor mandelman. and the staff at the budget and legislative analyst office, the city controller and his team, the mayor's budget office and, of course, my own staff, jen and francis. this is my final budget. it isn't everything we had hoped for, especially when we're thinking about it in december,
but i know it's the budget that meets the current moment. so once again, thank you for all your leadership and that includes everybody i just named. for now, why don't we have supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes, thank you, president yee. i just wanted to echo your thanks to chair fewer and chelsea, her chief of staff, for their extraordinary leadership during this budget process. when i first heard that we were going to be facing $1.7 billion hole in our budget i could not have imagined that we'd be sitting here today voting on the budget that is before us. somehow, some way, we managed to
meet the most pressing needs of constituents in our city during one of the biggest crisis that has ever befallen, certainly san francisco, but the country as a whole. and i had no idea that we would be able to accomplish what we accomplished. i don't know that i've ever felt more proud of a city budget than i feel this year. i've sat through, as a legislative aide and supervisor, about 10 budgets. and i've seen them all in good times and in bad times. and what feels so -- what makes me feel so proud of this budget is that when push came to shove and we had to get as lean as we possibly could, that we cut in places where it was appropriate at this time and this moment in history, and that we preserved
the critical services safety net and infrastructure serving san franciscans and their families the. there was not one layoff. we are meeting our commitment to our workers who are risking their life at this crucial time. and we are making sure that the unhoused have opportunities to be safe indoors. we made historic cuts to the police department, something that wasn't easy to do and that has never happened in the ten years that i've been on this board of supervisors, but we responded to the national movement asking us to do just that. what we accomplished was nothing short of extraordinary and i want to thank my colleagues on the budget committee, supervisors mandelman, president
yee, supervisor walton and, of course, chair fewer. it was brutal. we worked so hard. i can't believe how long those meetings were night after night. i thought we were going to lose our minds at certain points, but we didn't. we stayed as calm as we could under really tough circumstances. and we really kept our unity on this budget committee. and i feel very proud of that as well. and so much of that was following the lead of the chair. thank you again. we did it, we accomplished something major. of course, we never can make everyone happy, but i think if you look at the budget overall, it's a document we can all be proud of. thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: i have similar things to say, piling onto the thanks and gratitude to
my colleagues on the committee and to the folks in the budget office and the controller, but really, i just want to express tremendous gratitude and thanks to chair fewer and to chelsea. this was not an easy year for leading this budget process. i think it was historically challenging. and there were so many ways in which we could have been pulled parity and i know how hard our chair worked to hold the committee together, to hold stakeholders together, to try where possible to find consensus going the extra step. and sometimes we couldn't do that and we acknowledged that and moved on, but i think really the chair recognizing that we are in a moment where we're going to have to -- we're going to continue struggling with these things and need to have
trust and try to work together where we can, did an admirable job of honoring that spirit and trying to hold it together. and sending us into the next phases of this. we're not really done. we have tremendous uncertainty. we're going to have another budget to do next year. we may have work to do on the budget before then, but, i think, chair fewer, you've done -- you've led us to a place that is a very good one to be as we continue the conversations. thank you, i'll miss you, i'll miss our president, but i think we've gotten to a good place. >> president yee: thank you. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: >> supervisor preston: sorry, preston or peskin. >> supervisor peskin: preston is
before me. >> president yee: supervisor preston, sorry, your name scrolled up already. >> supervisor preston: no problem. thank you, president yee. and just want to echo the incredible thanks to chair fewer and chelsea. i will say as the newest supervisor on this body and the first time going through the budget process, i think i and my staff particularly appreciate, not only the amount of work that the chair and her team and the budget committee members have to put in during these -- not days or weeks, but months of gearing up for a budget of this type, but also to all of my colleagues who work with our office all the way through helping us understand the very complex process. and make sure that our priorities as an office were
reflected in the budget. i also want to just recognize also, similar to that, the partnership with the budget legislative analyst office, the controller's office and all the folks who advocate with us in making sure that their priorities are reflected. essential workers, many stakeholders and advocates who we hear from and who are involved every step of the way. so my staff, i did want to give a shoutout to jen and justin who led the budget work in our office. and i think overall the budget work this year has really been impressive at many levels as colleagues we've spoken to about the moment we're in and the financial realities. we not only restored a lot of proposed cuts that i think would have been devastating to the
city, but also increased investments in programs that are going to help, particularly help those most vulnerable in the city and help our residents get through this pandemic and get on the path to recovery. obviously an incredibly long list of projects and initiatives, but i do want to say, it really is a budget that includes a lot of new and historic investments. things like new community hubs to assist 6,000 students with distance learning. cultural competent covid response, including community-based testing and targeted investments in the latino and african-american communities hit hardest. the crisis outreach teams and resource center. new and expanded housing subsidies for seniors, for homes families and other -- homeless families and vulnerable
populations. new food security initiatives for communities impacted by covid-19. and the right to counsel program which provides free legal representation to san franciscans facing eviction. let me just say on this one, i deeply appreciate all of my colleagues' support for this and prioritizing of this important and ground breaking program for the city and also want to recognize the mayor's office of housing and community development folks who worked so hard to implement this and all the advocate who fought for the program. with the budget passing today, we'll be taking a major step toward the universal right for counsel for all san francisco tenants. i'm proud we're not only restoring the proposed cuts, but expanding the right to counsel program. a long list, a tiny fraction of what is in the budget and each of you colleagues have
championed the different aspects that i just raised. every one of those bullet points or sentences is weeks of work and advocacy that you all have done and it's work i greatly appreciate and i know folks in district 5 do, too. i do want to be clear, though, that i think we still have a long way to go in honoring the lives of black and brown residents in san francisco. injecting $120 million over the next two years to the african-american community is crucial and something that my office has supported and will continue to support. and in addition, as supervisor ronen noted, we have as a city, for once, not increased the police budget. and instead are decreasing it. and i think that is notable and important, but our city at the same time, the mayor and all of
us on the board of supervisors, to be frank, i think we came up short in our response to the widespread demands that we allocate more significant money from the police department and really re-imagine policing and public safety in our city. we did some cuts. and that took a lot of work and a lot of guts. and cuts over time and work orders for material academy classes. i want to recognize that, but i think in the face of a $700 million budget, the roughly 6% cuts to police is just not enough. we have major work to do and i think we can't allow ourselves to bury this reality in service of feel-good sentiments about de-funding police that are not matched by really concrete and bold action.
i think to do otherwise is insult to what the "new york times" said may be the largest movement in the u.s. history, the black lives matter movement. and we've lost black lives at the hands of police over and over. for those of us who were not around during the civil rights movement, if you ever wonder what you would have done during that movement, this is it. and i think we need to get much bolder about transforming how we think about policing and public safety. we need to invest in a more robust way in alternative to policing. i want to recognize we have started that work. but we are so far from where we need to be. and i just can't stress how much more work there is to do to meaningfully change a racist system that preys on poor and working class communities of color. and we, in our office and i know colleagues will continue standing, i hope, with those who
are very loudly and forcefully demanding more from all of us in city government. with that, colleagues, i'll wrap up. i will be voting in favor of this budget. i really appreciate all the work and care in putting together a budget that will do so much good for those who are struggling in our city. thank you. >> president yee: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. i don't think i can match the words of my previous colleagues, but i just want to start by sincerely thanking the chair of the budget committee and all of the members of the budget committee, their staff and everybody who participated in what most years is an annual ritual, but once a decade and probably never before in any of our lifetimes or political lifetimes is one of the most
difficult budgets that we will hopefully ever face. and i think the way the committee dealt with that and the decisions that they made are profoundly right. and we all have to acknowledge our absolutely financially uncertain. and it is entirely possible that even before you leave, president yee, and you leave budget chair fewer, that this budget may have to be reopened. some of that certainty actually, thank you to the california state supreme court, became more certain when they refused to take up the big c case and hopefully that will be the answer in the early childhood education and hopefully for the tax that was known as prop g. but i do have to say that as
somebody who once voted against a budget -- and i've been struggling with this -- a budget that was actually predicated on tax measures that had not passed, i've been struggling with whether i should vote for this budget. and after looking at the work that this committee has done, at the uncertainty and now the new certainty that we've gotten relative to the prop c case, i believe it is our individual and collective responsibility for all 11 of us, to vote to adopt this budget. is it perfect? of course, it's not perfect. are there little things in there that you don't like and i don't like and i've got my pet peeves, but they're pretty small pet peeves relative to the policy document that has been forwarded by this board, by the finance
committee. five of the 11 of us. and i truly, from the bottom of my heart, thank supervisor fewer and the members of that committee and the hundreds of hours that you put in. i do have one teeny tiny little amendment that i would like to make to item number 29. as it relates to the very important, albeit pedestrian issue of trash cans. and as prop b that we put -- not by unanimous vote, but by a super majority vote to create oversight over -- thank you, supervisor haney -- over the department of public works and create a new sanitation department with its own oversight body. i discussed this earlier today with supervisor haney and have
had a conversation with budget chair fewer. i would like to make a very small motion to reserve $840,000 in each of two fiscal years that will be used for the procurement of these trash cans. i include it on full board reserve. so i would like to make that motion. we can consider it and debate it later, but i really profoundly want to thank the budget committee. and i do believe that in this time, it is our individual and collective responsibility to pass this budget unanimously. thank you, colleagues. >> president yee: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, president yee. you know, there is a couple of things i want to say. i first also want to thank chair fewer and chelsea. i, like many of you, have had
the privilege of serving with supervisor fewer for a number of years both on this body and on the board of education and you brought everything to this process and we needed every bit of your experience and skills and creativity and ability to work with challenging questions and different interesting goals. and this is a truly a crowning achievement to your public service. and i really want to thank you supervisor fewer and chelsea for your extraordinary work. as supervisor ronen said, when we started this process, this is one of the tougher years we've ever faced as a city financially what our residents are going through, what their needs are, the demands of us, the very real and urgent demands of us around law enforcement and policing.
and you were able to balance all of that along with the members of the budget committee. and you know dozens and dozens of hours of hearings. and you all worked together. and all of the various folks who are out there in our city who care about this process had trust in your ability to manage all of that. for everything said about government not working and people not getting along and division and divisiveness, this was a time that people really came together. and we had tremendous trust in your ability to manage this. and to listen to us. my office, we had a ton of things like everyone did as supervisor preston said, and you took it all in and the outcome was one that was much better than we could have possibly imagined. we're in a moment where we cannot retreat, retract from the
needs that our residents are facing. this is not a time for just cuts. it's not a time for austerity. it's a time to invest in protecting our residents. their health and their economic situation. we don't have the ability to run a deficit nor should we, so we have to use our resources in a smart and effective way. they were more limited this year. and we made sure that when it came to the most critical needs and priorities of protecting our residents, we put those first. whether that was housing subsidies, whether it was essential workers and making sure there were no layoffs of the people who are supporting and protecting us during this time. investments in the black community and the latino community. addressing the most urgent pressing realities around covid. mental health s.f., fully funding mental health s.f. so nobody would ever say that a spending plan when we have such
tremendous needs in our city is perfect, but it does its best job possible, i believe, under the circumstances to meet -- [inaudible] -- make critical shifts away from overreliance on policing and law enforcement and essential investments in the black community. i just lastly want to say two things. one, our frontline workers, our city workers, our nurses, it means so much we made a statement in this budget and in the reality that we're facing that we're having their backs. they should not take a hit in this moment. we have a reserve. we have prepared for this. we have made commitments to them. and we should honor those commitments. and i'm very proud we're doing that. there is still a lot of work to do. others have said this.
you know, there are aspects of this budget where we need to make more investments moving forward. structural deficits in terms of housing. deeper investments in the black and latino community. child care, support for small businesses, but we did the best that we could with what we had and i think we should be very proud. i also want to thank courtney mcdonald in my office for her work and all of the staff who did this in partnership. thank you, again, chair fewer, and i will absolutely be supporting this budget and thank you to the entire budget committee. >> president yee: supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, president yee. and i do just want to make some brief statements and add my voice to the chorus. first i want to say when you're faced with a pandemic and a deficit and civil unrest, which i hope never befalls any of us
again, the importance of strong leadership is necessary. i just want to thank chair fewer and chelsea for steering a ship that a lot of people thought was sinking. your commitment to the hard work was evident and pure magicianship. and i truly mean that, getting all of us together and on the same page. for the community pushing us to persevere through this pandemic and preserve vital services during this crisis. and for defending the safety nets for those who need it the most. this was truly a process where colleagues, supervisor fewer, ronen, yee and mandelman and team work showed its best ability. frustrating at times. disheartening at times. we came together for the benefit of our city. i also want to thank ashley from
the mayor's budget office as well as all of my colleagues for their work on this budget. lastly, i want to appreciate tracy brown from my office for all of her work on the budget. she worked tirelessly with other legislative aides and was available to all both day and night while we worked through this budget process. we have accomplished something never seen before here in san francisco and quite frankly, anywhere across this country, by redirecting over $100 million and providing a major investment in the black community. working together with mayor breed and all of my colleagues, that is a true step towards reparation and recognizing the harm done to my community. there is no better way to say what our morals are, what our obligations are than by where we put our resources and how we do
that as a city. i, again, want to thank all of us for the work on this budget. we are here, like supervisor preston, the work continues and we have a very long way to go, but i am proud of what we have done together and know that we have done this through major adversity. thank you, all. >> president yee: thank you. supervisor ronen, i see your name, but i'm going to call supervisor mar first. >> supervisor mar: thank you. briefly, i want to add my deep appreciation to chair fewer, chelsea, all of our colleagues who sit on budget committee from the mayor's budget office, controller office, my legislative aide who led the work and most importantly, the advocates who work on the front lines to serve san franciscans every day and hold us accountable to pass a budget that reflects the needs of our
city. especially in these trying times and constraints. this budget reflects our commitment to public services by staving off cuts. in the face of the ongoing pandemic, widespread unemployment and monumental challenges for small businesses, investing in the public sector ensures that san franciscans are supported during a crisis when the stakes are the highest and when they are most in need. the budget also reflects the public response to the global pandemic that supports front line essential workers who pivoted quickly and did so much more with less in the face of their own economic instability. finally, i'm proud of our investment to the black community and public safety for all. especially our investment in community safety and restorative justice for the a.p.i. and black community, the alternative to policing. along with the support for higher education and workforce development, these are the kinds
of policies and investments that truly stabilize families, security and create justice. so thanks again to all of you for the work on this budget and i look forward to moving forward today. thank you. >> president yee: thank you. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes. thank you so much. i am very sorry, but i forgot to give one of the biggest thanks to my legislative aide who worked on his first city budget ever and did a remarkable job. thank you so much santiago. >> president yee: okay. i think i got everybody on the roster here. oh, did i miss you? i'm sorry. >> supervisor safai: thank you,
president yee. i want to start off by saying i've served for four years with chair fewer. we sat next to each other, we've worked together in the trenches and i have to say every day i'm impressed by the leadership and the work she did. this was a phenomenal opportunity for her to step up and show her leadership skills. and i have to say this was one of the smoothest budgets in one of the most difficult times. i really want to commend you, supervisor fewer, for the work that you did. i know that chelsea carried a tremendous load and your team, so i want to commend you for the work you did on behalf of the board of supervisors. i want to recognize the mayor's budget team and their team for coming together and working in partnership with the all of us and the rest of the budget committee for all their hard work. there are a few things i think are historic. many of the colleagues mentioned them, but i want to reiterate a
few of them. one of the first times that i can recall, the voice of the black community came together working with mayor breed and working with supervisor walton in the form of a coalition of african-american leaders city wide called mega black. i think that was a historic statement from the black community in these times. and i think it's a voice that needs to be listened to and underscored and in many ways uplifted and empowered. i'm really proud of the work this board did and this mayor did to highlight that group and listen to their concerns. $120 million over two years, it's a significant step as what supervisor walton said in the step toward reparations. i want to highlight that. i want to recognize the hard work that my staff, monica did, working through all the hard
work on behalf of the community, the calls night and day. i want to highlight the work she did. and the work we were able to incorporate into the budget in terms of the latinx community, in terms of highlighting the disproportionate impact that covid has had on that community. it's important we made a statement. there is still more work to be done, but it's important we were able to highlight that. and as to what supervisor haney said, really recognizing our frontline city workers, our bus drivers, nurses, laborers, all the folks that have put it on the line every single day. our librarians have been some of the best disaster service workers that have been redeployed doing contact tracing. while our libraries are shut down, these are the folks in our hotels that are out on the streets, doing much of that work. so our command center, our human
rights led by director davis and all the conversation of equity that were incorporated into this budget. and then lastly, the work we were able to do for one of the first times, the city-wide initiative on violence prevention for the api community working in partnership with some very significant ceo to talk about the violence perpetrated toward the chinese-american api community and working with the african-american community to come together in terms of building harmony and partnership to really dig deep into this. so i just wanted to thank everyone for all the hard work. thank you, president yee, for your leadership as well. i know you were involved in many of the negotiations and conversations and so i appreciate you through all of this. thank you. >> president yee: okay. supervisor stefani?
>> supervisor stefani: thank you, president yee. colleagues, with the pandemic and resulting economic catastrophe, the board of supervisors has been faced with one of the most difficult environments in recent memory to be making decisions that will affect peoples lives for years to come. between my time and chief of staff to former supervisor lapeer in the wake of the great recession, farmer staffer to mark farrell and the department head of the county clerk office, i have seen how much thought, careful consideration and collective effort goes into making a budget proposal. i value the perspective that each of you bring to the table. mayor breed started with the budget proposal without layoffs and provided $5 million in small
business relief. as i have wrestled with the amendments made by this body, it has become clear to me that the budget as amended is untenable. this proposal drains down our reserves and fails to provide enough support for those who need it most, the small businesses community and our newly unemployed neighbors. this proposal depends on state and federal reimbursement, as well as revenue from a tax measure that has not yet passed by the voters. covid-19 will be with us for a long time. it will continue to increase our expenses while decreasing our revenue. and there is no way to know what reimbursement we will receive over the next two years. each time the controller has assessed our financial position, he has revised his revenue projections downward. tourism is not likely to return. commercial real estate is in freefall. and more than 200,000 san franciscans remain unemployed. these pillars of our local economy may very well be in
worse shape next year than we currently understand. the city is in no position to commit funding we may not have, but this proposal does that. while failing to provide necessary services for residents and small businesses. our reserves exist to stabilize government services and support our community during a volatile situation like the one we find ourselves in today. this budget does not provide the support our small business community faces as they face extinction level and our reserves are not infinite. this is a budget that will spend a lot of taxpayer money and produce nowhere near the benefits this moment demand. for this reason, i cannot support the proposal before us today. >> president yee: supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: thank you, president yee. so, colleagues, i made my
comments last week, but i just want to say again how extraordinarily proud i am of this budget in front of us today. for the last couple of months, this board and this budget committee has been under tremendous pressure to step up to the challenge of reversing budget cuts, investing in community needs and list of public health and economic crisis, addressing historic racism and responding to the call to pull funds from police for black community priorities. this budget includes historic investments. over $17 million for new and expanded housing subsidies for seniors, homeless families and other vulnerable populations. an additional $2 million for new food security initiatives for communities impacted by covid-19 in addition to the more than $20 million investment from the mayor. almost $15 million in emergency relief for non-profit and their workers on the front line of the covid crisis. $2 million for cultural
competent covid response including community-based testing and target investment in the latino and black communities hit hardest by the virus. assisting 6,000 students with distance learning, free legal representation for san franciscans facing eviction. mental health response outreach team, expanded resource hours and implementation of mental health s.f. and millions more in funding for community-based services for youth, family, seniors and people with disabilities. not to mention restoring funds for victims of domestic violence. and deepened investments for health services for queer and transcommunities and addressing our black mortality rate which is among the worst in our nation. thank you, again, to my colleagues, especially on the
budget committee for being collaborative partners through a very, very difficult year. i just want to say also that i think this budget committee worked really well together. there was compromise, give and take, and also brought new ideas and assisted me, i think, in forming this budget that you see presented before you today for approval. i also want to say that i realize this budget is not perfect. there are certainly, for every supervisor, items in this budget that we may not agree with. but it is our responsibility to come together to work out our disagreements during the budget process. and i have to just say that every single supervisor was invited to every single budget meeting and not all supervisors took me up on that. to work out our disagreements during the budget process and ultimately pass a city budget so we can pave streets, put out
fires, run after school programs, collect taxes, run airports, place people in housing and shelter, run a hospital and so much more. this budget gets people paid and ensures the city keeps running. i am proud of what we've done together to finalize the package that reflects the board and the city's value. if this budget does not pass, it means city government shuts down completely. a no-vote for this means no one gets paid. nurses don't get paid, doctors don't get paid, librarians don't get paid, clerks, firefighters, police officers, all of them do not get paid. there are things in this budget that trouble me, too. the mayor's balancing the budget on the assumption that a ballot measure will pass is a big one, however, in the end, we're one city and our communities need our help now and they need us to be united. let's be bold enough to answer the call. having said that, i have amendments to item number 29.
in a normal year, there would be little to no amendments at the full board, but this is not a normal year. and during our remote deliberations, there were changes. i present to you the amendments to the final spending plan. all of my colleagues should have reserved these -- received these from my staff yesterday. item 61 was a duplicate and this change should have been made on the regional list. item 64 was also a duplicate and should have been allocated for services. and fortunately, district 6 allocation was included instead of the final version that supervisor haney's office provided, so those changes are reflected here. and finally the two-year allocation with the puc is included. all other changes are updating the list with which departments the line items should go to. so i make a motion to approve these amendments to item number
29. >> president yee: seconded by supervisor ronen. why don't we go ahead, madame clerk, and take the motions one at a time. supervisor peskin, you have something to say? >> supervisor peskin: i do, as i mentioned earlier, an amendment to item 29. i also have -- discuss relative to the budget, but whatever is your will, mr. president. >> president yee: so, i'm sorry, i didn't hear the 29 part. >> supervisor peskin: as i mentioned earlier, there is an amendment that i would like to offer relative to putting on reserve $840,000 of refuse rates in each of the two years for the procurement of new trash cans. i mentioned that earlier. >> president yee: right. >> supervisor peskin: i would like to make that motion as well, mr. president. >> president yee: okay, no
problem. i didn't know what number was associated to. >> supervisor peskin: that is item 29, sir. >> supervisor fewer: mr. president, i am open to taking those amendments with my amendments as one package. and from supervisor peskin. my question to the city attorney, are any of the amendments substantive? >> no, supervisor fewer, they are not. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> president yee: okay. >> supervisor peskin: full board of supervisors reserve, let me be abundantly clear, that $840,000 in each of two fiscal years would be on the full board of senior supervisors reserve. >> president yee: is there a second for supervisor peskin's motion? i need a second. >> okay. supervisor fewer. so there is amendments offered for item 29 and seconded.
is there any discussion? supervisor ronen, did you have something? i see you on the roster. >> supervisor ronen: i just had another comment, but not related to these motions, related to the overall budget. >> president yee: okay. >> me too. >> president yee: i'll get back to you guys, okay. >> supervisor ronen: okay. >> president yee: sorry, colleagues. [please stand by] [please stand by]
>> supervisor fewer: page 7, lines 7, 9, and 11 are missing rates in the fiscal year 2020-2021 column. page 7, line 9, is supposed to be e.m. comprehensive consult instead of e.m. expanded consult. so i'd make a motion to make those amendments. >> president yee: okay. is there a second? supervisor peskin? any discussion? seeing none, madam clerk, please call the roll on the motion to amend 65 -- 45, i'm sorry. >> clerk: yes, on the amend to item 45 -- [roll call]
>> supervisor ronen: i think peskin was performing. >> president yee: okay. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, supervisor ronen, and thank you, president yee. so through the president to supervisor stefani, can you reiterate -- i think you heard you say earlier that you were thinking you were going to vote against this budget, and i heard the budget chair express her concern that this budget could fail. that's clearly not going to happen. after 20 years, i know how to count votes, and it looks like to me that we have either an 11-0 or a 10-1 vote. and i have not discussed this with any of my colleagues, but can you reiterate, supervisor stefani, why you're voting no on this budget?
>> president yee: supervisor stefani, would you like to do that? >> supervisor peskin: you're on mute. >> supervisor stefani: through the chair, supervisor peskin, i made it clear in the remarks that i made why i have issues with the budget. would you like me -- do you need me to read them again? >> supervisor peskin: please, through the president. >> supervisor stefani: colleagues, the pandemic and resulting economic catastrophe has made it necessary for us to make decisions. i have seen just how much thought, careful decision, and
collective effort goes into making a budget proposal. over the summer, mayor breed presented the board of supervisors with a strong starting point with her budget proposal that closed the historically large deficit without layoffs and provided $5 million in small business relief. the proposal drains down on all reserves and fails to provide enough support to those who need it most: our small businesses and more than 200,000 unemployed neighbors. it relies on state and federal reimbursement as well as a tax measure that has not yet been passed by the voters. covid-19, this worldwide pandemic that we're in, will be with us for a very long time. it will continue to increase our expenses while decreasing our revenue, and there is no way to know what reimbursement
we will receive over the next two years. every time the controller has assessed our financial position, she has revised the projections downward. we know that tourism is not likely to return any time soon. commercial real estate is in free fall, and 200,000 san franciscans are unemployed. i do not believe that this city is in a position to commit funding we may not have, but this proposal does that. >> supervisor peskin: so -- sorry. go ahead. i apologize. >> president yee: keep going. >> supervisor stefani: that's okay. i think if you didn't get the point the first time, i really shouldn't have to read it the second time. >> supervisor peskin: no, and totally respectfully, as i said
in my earlier comments, if this were any normal year, and the budget was being balanced on a tax measure that hasn't been passed, i would vote no, and i struggled with the comments. supervisor stefani, i truly hold you in the highest esteem, and i wasn't trying to run you through the paces, i was trying to remind myself of what the arguments were. i think to encapsulate the comments, i think what you said is, number one, this budget is based on tax measures that haven't passed. >> supervisor stefani: correct. >> supervisor peskin: and that is true and is possibly why this budget will have to be
reopened. it will have to be reopened because of the profound uncertainty, and i think that the mayor and the mayor's budget shop and chair fewer and everybody understands. but there was a second thing, and the reason i asked you to remind us as you were making your comments is the notion of spending down our rainy day reserves. when i first started 20 years ago, we basically didn't have rainy day reserves in san francisco. weirdly enough, the rainy day concept was pushed by not the moderates, but by tom ammiano. the fundamental reason our budget is in such great shape is the former president, tom
ammiano, the lefty believed that being fiscally prudent was a progressive value, and the notion here that this budget is indeed predicated on drawing down of rainy day reserves. and i've wrestled with that, too. and if there's ever a rainy day, it's pouring cats and dogs right now. so -- and by the way, the budget that supervisor chair fewer has brought to the rest of us, i am not on the budget committee. i will never be on the budget committee. i did four years on the budget committee. i'm never going to be on the budget committee for as long as i shall live, and i salute the budget committee. but the notice that we are spending down our rainy day reserves to me seems fiscally right. this is not the librarian that thinks that he or she is doing
their job when all the books are on the shelves, this is a librarian who smiles to himself or herself when all the books have been checked out. and so to that end, i actually think, with great uncertainty, that this budget is actually the best budget that any collection of legislative and executive members and their staffs and their expert staffs could put together. so respectfully, through the president, i really hope we have a unanimous vote on this budget. as i said earlier in my comments, supervisor stefani, it is perfect. i don't like the fact that there's $50,000 in there in overtime for our own staff. i don't like that, but i wouldn't sink the budget with that, and i wouldn't sink the budget for rainy day reserves included in there. with that, i'll conclude my
comments. >> president yee: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, president yee. when mayor breed handed us this budget, she handed it to us upon the assumption that prop f would passed. and i don't remember you coming to any of the budget committees to express any concern about it, and you certainly didn't reach out to me about any concerns you had about the budget during the entire process. and i ask you why that is. and the reason that i ask you why that is is because we spent more time than i think i've spent on most things in my life busting our butts to try to come up with a budget that could save lives during this time and could keep people going during one of the hardest moments in their lives.
and chair fewer literally worked miracles to get us all together where we on the committee itself had very, very different ideas on how to prioritize and how to come to agreement on the budget. i think, like, supervisor mandelman and i were on opposite sides of how to deal with the police budget, but we came together in the interest of unity and in the interest of giving some modicum of peace to the people of san francisco that we have their backs during this time. so i have to say that i do take a little bit of your remarks at this last moment -- not as an insult because i know you're not trying to insult us, but i'm a bit frustrated because it would have been nice to have heard your voice during the entire months-long process had
you had an issue with this. the fact that ten of us agree on something that none of us, as supervisor peskin stated, are 100% happy with the budget. and to have you for the first time express your opposition feels a little bit disrespectful to me, and it feels a little bit disrespectful to the chair of the budget committee who probably didn't get any sleep when trying to put a fair budget together. >> president yee: supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i will briefly interrupt in that in my remarks earlier, i neglected to thank tom temprano, who made this happen, so thank you, leger and tom temprano who made this happen.
>> supervisor ronen: and president yee, i was posing a question to supervisor stefani through the chair. >> president yee: supervisor stefani, if you'd like to respond, you're welcome. >> supervisor stefani: yes. i respect everyone's point of view. i see this differently, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. my staff was intimately involved and had many conversations with chair fewer's staff, and i just see the budget differently. >> supervisor ronen: one more question through the chair. how would you have handled the budget if it came to you balanced upon an assumption that prop f would have passed? would you have -- would you have not assumed that budget and told the mayor that that wasn't appropriate and done something different than chair fewer did? >> president yee: supervisor ronen, can i not go with that question, please? i don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. >> supervisor ronen: actually,
president yee, i'm sorry. i have a right to ask a question, and supervisor -- to my colleague on a matter that's been jaeagendized on the budge and she can answer it however she chooses, but i would really like her to answer my question. >> president yee: okay. you may or may not want to but go ahead. >> supervisor stefani: i will answer with one simple sentence: i would budget within our means, the money that we have when we have it. not based on the budget that we will have in november. we should balance the budget that we have at the time. >> supervisor ronen: okay. i would just finish with this for those of us who spent countless hours on the budget committee. if we would have done that, we would have had to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from
life-saving services to the residents of san francisco, and i just want to reiterate one more time how proud i am of the work of chair fewer and this committee, that we did the best that we could to ensure, to save lives during a pandemic, and i want to thank mayor breed, as well, for having approached the budget in the way that she did by assuming the passage of prop f because to do otherwise at this time would have been devastating, and with that, i'll end my comments. >> president yee: chair fewer, can i get clarification? i still believe there's $900 million or so that's in reserves, and that when -- when you -- when we made a decision to add a little bit more
towards the add back, that money that we reserved, that we targeted, was actually the level removed from prop f, it wasn't dipping into the existing reserves. >> supervisor fewer: that's correct. >> president yee: so if prop f doesn't pass, all of that goes away. so i think i agree. i felt that same, and supervisor stefani is saying we passed a budget that was balanced on these assumptions, and we looked at it, and we basically went through it, agonized over it, and the decision made in the budget committee was to move forward with what the mayor had made assumptions on, and that prop f will -- will do its best to
pass, and if it doesn't [inaudible], the budget process will have to open up again. i just want to say that for clarification. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: thank you, pre president yee. i also wanted to say that per the controller, there's $750 million left in the reserves. the reserves are not being all spent. and also, i want to say that during this budget process and for supervisors that have worked with me on budget before, they know that their voices are heard. budget committee members have said to me in the past that they appreciate that i do listen to them, but i do have to hear the comments first. some supervisors came to the
budget committee, but to say now that this budget isn't -- doesn't have in it what you want or you're not happy, i also just wanted to say that i feel like, in our defense, that we invited every single supervisor to every budget meeting, and to hear the voices of the supervisors, and my legislative aide painstakingly went to every single office to hear about concerns. there have been past budgets i've had to hold my nose and vote for them, too, and i wasn't happy to do so. but there were things that i liked in the budget. i think we heard loud and clear that there was a supervisor that was concerned about victims of domestic violence, and we fully restored that and funded that. if this budget did not pass,
they would not have that funding, either. quite frankly, i think we have a different view of moving san francisco forward. if we don't pass a budget, that means that absolutely every single city service shuts down immediately, and so that is too big of a risk. so i just want to thank all of my colleagues once again for their work on this budget. it's not ideal? is this a budget that i think was difficult and challenging? yes. am i glad it is my last budget year? yes, you bet. it was a lot of work, it was a lot of me pushing back on people, too, and this is something, you know, i have to say, that is etched in my memory. and one of the hardest things that i've done is actually give [inaudible] and this was harder than that. so having said that, president yee, thank you for allowing me to make my comments, and thank you, colleagues. >> president yee: sure. supervisor safai?
>> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. i think it's important to have these kind of conversations. i did have one question, point of clarification, since we're talking about prop f, and just for the record. if prop f were not to pass, what impact does that have on the budget in terms of scale, and how much money does that impact? just so we -- >> president yee: $300 million. >> supervisor safai: excuse me? >> president yee: $300 million. >> supervisor safai: $300 million additional dollars, so that was what was incorporated into this. i just wanted to get that into the record. that was a significant assumption, and that's why we're working so hard to get prop f passed. i think it's fair to say that revenue's going down. i think it's fair to say that taxes are going down, and i do appreciate the comments of
supervisor peskin because he has the perspective of 20 years of being on this board when supervisor ammiano and the board created at that time the reserves. i think it's important at that say that if not now, when? and it's important in these times of need that we are to be commended for continuing these services, for sure. but $300 million is significant, so i hope that all of us are involved in assuring that we are able to get that across the finish line, and what that would mean for the budget, for sure. so thank you, chair fewer, for all of your hard work. i think this is a pretty unbelievable experience to go through. when you and i were on the board, and we had so much extra riches, we were fighting not
what not to spend it on, but what to spend it on. i just want to commend you, and thank you for the conversation that we're having today. >> president yee: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yeah, just to correct the record through the chair, supervisor safai, and if prop f does not pass, we would have to account for $150 million approximately that would be the balance to fill. $150 million in a $13 billion budget is doable and we can do it. the suffering that would take place if we don't pass the budget that we're going to pass today is too horrifying to explain. >> supervisor safai: of course. so is it 150 over one year or 150 over two years? >> president yee: i'm sorry. when i said that, i forgot that part of the contribution was
from the homeless prop c. >> supervisor safai: got it. >> president yee: and as soon as it got out of court, part of it is available right now. part of it was available from baby prop c, general funds. so supervisor ronen is probably correct, closer to the 150 mark. >> supervisor safai: okay. i think that most of us understood that, but i just wanted to get that on the record. >> president yee: okay. let l let's see where we're at. so we have amended items. and madam clerk, can i actually call all the items, plus amended, you know, number 29 as amended and number 45 as amended and the remainder of the items all at once? >> clerk: yes, sir.
>> president yee: okay. let's do that. let's take the roll on -- i forget what number through what number at this point? >> clerk: so it's 29 through 52, and 29 as amended. >> president yee: okay. let's take the roll on those items. [roll call] >> clerk: there are 10 ayes and one no, with supervisor
together. >> clerk: items 69 and 70 are the board of supervisors sitting as a committee of the whole, hearing scheduled pursuant to motion number m-20-102, approved on august 11, 2020. item 69 is a hearing of the boards sitting as a committee of the whole on september 22, 2020, at 3:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing to consider the ordinance approving an amendment to the redevelopment plan for the mission bay south redevelopment project. >> president yee: okay. without objection, we will proceed as follows.
a brief presentation from the office of community investment and infrastructure. [inaudible] seeing no objections, then, we'll proceed as proposed. i think gretchen heckman from the office of community investment and infrastructure is here to present. gretchen, please proceed with your presentation if you're here. oh, there you are. >> thank you, president yee. good afternoon, president yee and supervisors. i am gretchen heckman, and i will be presented on the [inaudible] and i will pull up
my slide to share with you all. is that visible to everyone? >> president yee: yes. >> okay. great. so we will start with a rendering of the project and an overview of the mission bay south project area. here is a visual of the hotel under construction as well as a rendering of what it will look like upon completion. here you can see an aerial shot of the mission bay neighborhood, which as you can see, it's nearly complete. this shows the two projects in mission bay. mission bay north, shown in red, and mission bay south, shown in blue. 29% of these units will be
quarter of next year. [inaudible] hotel started construction on their project in 2018. they have proposed to divide 28 of their 37 one and two-bedroom suites into 49 individual rooms. this request requires an amendment to the mission bay south redevelopment plan to increase the number of rooms allowed on the block one hotel parcel from the currently approved 250 rooms to the rounded number of 300 rooms.
the last [inaudible] including the ocii commission, planning commission, the oversight board, and the california department of finance. this shows the current change to the proposed project. as you can see in the bottom row of this table, the building's overall square footage remains the staple because the additional rooms will be achieved by moving interior walls and adding doors, thus, no exterior work will be needed for the suite conversion. this slide shows the typical floor plan and examples of two-in-one bedroom suites, which are outlined in red. each suite also has a living room which will be converted into a stand-alone room. the main change required in the redevelopment plan is an
increase in the number of hotel rooms on the hotel parcel in block one. there are also minor installations having to do with the 2013 redevelopment plan amendment also associated with the larger block one. this slide shows all of the approval entities, again, that have acted or will act on the proposed amendments. the ocii commission and planning commission approved the redevelopment amendment in july, and after today's hearing, the oversight board will review the participation in the agreement on october 8. that concludes my presentation for today, and i and other ocii staff are happy to answer any
questions. >> president yee: thank you, gretchen. we will now proceed to public comment. is there any -- first of all, before i do that, are there any questions? first of all, let's go to public comments. you have two minutes each or if there are anybody that would like to speak on this item? madam clerk, are there any speakers? >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. operations, can you let us know how many are in the queue, and if you would unmute the first caller. >> operator: yes, i have two callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. i'll set the timer for two minutes, mr. president. >> president yee: yes. >> clerk: okay. welcome, caller.
all right. hello, caller? i believe i can hear your television. you should turn down your television. all right. operations, this person might have walked away from their phone or is not watching their television. we'll circle back. can you unmute the next caller. welcome, caller. >> good afternoon, president yee, members of the san francisco board of supervisors, staff, and members of the community. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. my name is don hokett, and i'm a field representative at
carpenters local 22. i represent 4,000 carpenters here in san francisco and 40,000 across california. i am a member of pile drivers local 34 and have worked on most of the projects in the bay area. i know having worked on this project firsthand in particular any local hires and apprentices are given the same opportunities today. the members of carpenters union local 22 support soma's request by replacing suites with more rooms. san francisco hospitality industry has been impacted by covid-19, and we need to support business' requests to adjust to the demands of the current market.
the soma hotel and their union general contractor, hathaway dinwiddy, provides contractors union wages and benefits. this project provides good jobs while making every effort to hire local. in addition, the corarpenters union is in full support of the changes, and we ask that you approve them. as well. thank you for your time. >> clerk: all right. thank you for your comments. all right. operations, try the caller once again. we are currently taking comments for the members of the community who are interested in the community from the mission bay south redevelopment comment. >> excuse me. i meant to comment for a different -- we're going to have public comments at 1:10?
>> clerk: we're going to have general public comment later in the meeting. >> excuse me, then i'll wait for the appropriate time. >> clerk: okay. operations, is there another caller? >> i'm sorry, clerk. i thought this was public comment, but i just heard it's 1:30 or 1:10, so i'll call back. >> clerk: no, sir, this is public comment for the mission bay redevelopment plan south. so if you're waiting for general public comment, it'll be later in the meeting. >> i was watching the meeting on t.v., and supervisor peskin is so smart. there was a $20 million allotment for the [inaudible] of mission bay. that was 20 years ago, and, you know, i don't know, maybe 10
years ago, and they were given $20 million to fix that problem. peskin is so smart, he said wait a minute. that was ten years ago. i want to know what the real cost of taking care of the society is now. he's so smart, man. >> clerk: operations, is there another caller, please? hello, caller? >> operator: madam clerk, that completes the queue. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. >> president yee: thank you, madam president. seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed. are there any other comments from my colleagues? seeing none, this hearing has
matters proposed for continuance and take individual votes on each of the appeals beginning with items 71 through 74 compromised public hearing and associated motion for 552 through 554 hill street. the suggested date for the continuance is october 6. items 75 through 78 comprise the public hearing and associated motions for the appeal of determination for exemption for environmental review for the proposed project at 231 37 avenue. for items 79 through 82, the public hearing and associated motions for the appeal of conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 2001 37 avenue. suggested date for continuance is october 6. for the items 83 through 86,
for the public hearing and associated motions for the appeal of determination of exemption from environmental review for the proposed department of public health local oversight program for investigation remediation project at 1776 green street with a suggested date for a continuance to october 20. for the items associated with items 87 through 90 for the public hearing and associated motions for the appeal of final mitigated negative declaration proposed for the project at 2417 green street. suggested continuance date to october 20. and for the four m.t.a. projects, items 91 through 94 for the public hearing and associated motions for the public exemption from environmental review for the transportation recovery plan from covid-19 for temporary
transit ways and bikeways, suggested continuance date is september 29. for the items associated with 95 through 98, public hearing and associated motions for the appeal of determination from statutory exemption from environmental review, suggested continuance date to september 29, and for items 99 through 102, for the public hearing and associated motions for the appeal and statutory exemption from environmental review for the m.t.a. environmental operations center, emergency temporary street changes program, suggested continuance date, september 29, and lastly, for the items 103 through 106 for the public hearing and associated 340egs associated motions for the m.t.a. post streets phase three. suggested continuance date is
september 29, 2020. thank you, mr. president. >> president yee: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor haney, did you want to make some comments? >> supervisor haney: i had no comments, but i'm going to make a motion to continue these items. >> president yee: you want to -- you want to make a motion to continue all the items?
>> supervisor haney: yes. >> president yee: okay. we could do that. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, to what date? >> president yee: to next week, to september 29. >> supervisor peskin: second. >> president yee: so the motion to continue all the items from 71 to 106 has been made. any discussion? seeing none -- >> clerk: mr. president, i just want to interrupt for a moment. the -- >> president yee: go ahead. >> clerk: i just want to make sure, for clarity's sake, supervisor haney, your motion is to continue all of these
dates not to the suggested date on the calendar, but to next week. that is your motion? >> president yee: there's different dates for different ones. >> clerk: yes. each item has a suggested continuance date. >> president yee: supervisor haney, would you like to rescind your motion, and i'll just call people that might want to make motions on particular ones? is that okay? >> supervisor haney: sure. i rescind my motion. >> president yee: okay. thank you very much. so for items 71 through 74, is there a motion to continue? >> supervisor safai: so moved. >> president yee: is there a second? >> second. >> president yee: and there is
a motion and a second. >> supervisor peskin: and, mr. president, i will go ahead and withdraw my second. >> president yee: okay. thank you, supervisor peskin. madam clerk, if you would call the roll. >> clerk: mr. president, if you could capture who made the second, and we'll open it up for public comment so the public can comment on the continuances, and then, we'll take the vote on the item individually. >> president yee: sounds good. i believe it was supervisor peskin that made the second? is that correct, supervisor peskin, on the last vote to -- >> clerk: the hill street appeal. >> supervisor peskin: second. >> president yee: okay. that was him. >> clerk: okay. >> president yee: is there a motion to continue items 75
through 82? >> clerk: yes, that would be -- >> president yee: supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: yes. i would make a motion to continue items 75 through 82 to october 6. >> president yee: okay. is there a second? >> supervisor mandelman: second, supervisor mandelman. >> president yee: second by supervisor mandelman. is there a motion to continue items 83 through 86? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president yee. i would like to move to continue items 83 through 86 to the october 20, 2020 board of supervisors meeting. >> president yee: okay. thank you. is there a motion to continue items -- oh, is there a second for item -- for that motion?
>> supervisor mandelman: second, mandelman. >> president yee: is there a motion to continue items 83 through -- no, 87 through 90. >> supervisor stefani: yes, thank you president yee. i would like to move to continue items 87 to 90 to the october 20, 2020 board of supervisors meeting. >> president yee: okay. any second? >> supervisor mandelman: second, mandelman. >> president yee: all righty. do we have a motion to continue items 91 through 94? >> supervisor mandelman: mandelman. >> clerk: now we're getting into the four m.t.a. appeals for reference. >> president yee: okay. >> clerk: and so this is supervisor mandelman who made the motion. >> supervisor preston: second, preston. >> president yee: okay. this is a motion to continue these items to september 29.
is there a motion to continue items 99 through -- >> clerk: mr. president, i'm sorry. 95 through 98 would be next. >> president yee: okay. sorry about that. is there a motion to continue items 95 through 98 to the meeting of september 29? >> supervisor preston: president yee, i'd like to move 95 through 98 to continued to september 29, 2020. >> president yee: okay. thank you. do i have a motion to continue items 99 through 102 to september 29, 2020? >> supervisor mandelman: you do, but i'll also second supervisor preston's prior motion. >> clerk: thank you. >> president yee: i'm glad i have you guys for colleagues to remind me. no, i'm serious.
is there a second? supervisor mandelman made a motion to continue items 99 through 102, and seconded by who? >> supervisor preston: preston. >> president yee: okay. do i have a motion to continue items 103 through 106 to september 29, 2020. >> supervisor preston: motion. >> supervisor mandelman: second. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, before we vote, let's take public comment on the continuances for all the items. >> supervisor fewer: president yee, before you -- >> president yee: okay. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes, i'd like to ask the city attorney for her advice. i own property near 2001 37
avenue, i think within 500 feet of the proposed construction site, so i may have to recuse myself on a motion to -- i just want to know, do i have to recuse myself on the motion to continue? >> deputy city attorney ann pearson, if you are confidence your -- absolutely confident your property is within 500 feet, it's probably a safeway to proceed. >> supervisor peskin: i make a motion to recuse supervisor fewer. >> president yee: no, no, no. wait a moment. what items do you have to
recuse yourself on, supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: 75 through 82. >> supervisor mar: i believe it's 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87. >> supervisor peskin: and i would like to make a motion for supervisor fewer to recuse herself for those items. >> president yee: okay. is there a motion to recuse? >> supervisor mar: second, mar. second by mar. >> president yee: okay. let's those items are going to be heard, also, so i'm a little
bit [inaudible] procedurally because i will be taking public comments on all of these items. madam clerk, what's the procedure here? >> clerk: sure. mr. president, i think you're right. let's take public comment first, and then, we'll take the fewer recusal, and then, we'll take each motion one at a time. so we'll begin with public comment. >> president yee: okay. do we need to excuse supervisor fewer now? >> clerk: no, we can take public comment first and then excuse her during the action. >> president yee: okay. let's take public comment for items 75 to 106 and in regards to the continuance. okay, madam clerk, go ahead. i'm sorry. >> clerk: i will provide the
telephone phone number. it is 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-7550-0645. press pound twice and then star, three if you are interested in getting to speak. the board is accepting public comments for items 71 through 106. operations, do we have any public speakers? >> operator: yes. we have four callers in the queue. i will unmute the first caller. >> clerk: okay. welcome, caller. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, welcome, caller. >> okay. it's david pillpow. here are my brief comments. one other appeals today are
proposed to continuance for october 6 through october 20. m.t.a. has already implemented the project, so there's no prejudice to m.t.a. m.t.a. provided new information which i have not yet digested for researched. five, it is extremely difficult for me to submit more information to the board by this friday, either by noon or 5:00 p.m., so one week for me is definitely a hardship. six, yom kippur is monday, so i don't think i can submit anything by friday morning, which is not enough time for anyone to read anything on my appeals. please, seriously. otherwise, i cannot
meaningfully participate despite my best efforts to pursue these appeals in good faith, and i think both planning and m.t.a. can live with two weeks, so i ask you to do the same. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, this is supervisor peskin. i realize this is rather extraordinary, but insofar as as the public commenter is an appellant, if you will give me the ability to do so, i would like to, through the president, ask the individual a question. >> president yee: you may. go ahead. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. mr. pillpow, are you still on the line? >> yes, i'm still here. >> supervisor peskin: mr. pillpow, i heard the arguments that you set forth regarding the "hardship" and the jewish holiday that you and i share, but i would like to ask you --
and i don't mean to be antagonistic or argumentative, but what is going to take your days between now and y yom kippur? what is your schedule like between now and then? >> yes, i can. i have family issues going on that i'd rather not make public. i have preparations with the synagogue relative to the ten days. on the appeals, there's a lot of information some of which was only provided yesterday by planning and m.t.a. that requires some more research both factually and legally, and he h i'd like to give it the effort it deserves.
i'm not asking for two years or six months, i'm only asking for two weeks. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. pillpow, and i understand you have family issues, nor would i like to pry, but do you have a job or anything that occupancy you eight or more hours a day? it's a yes or no question, mr. pillpow? >> i do not. i'm spending as much time on these appeals and spending as much time as i can on these appeals, as you are well aware. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your answers, mr. pillpow. mr. president, thank you for allowing me my comments. >> president yee: thank you. madam clerk, next caller. >> clerk: operations, let's unmute the next caller.
welcome, caller. do you have comments specifically on the continuance for these items? >> this is mary eliza. i want to support what david pillpow is asking, for two weeks. i also want to make a comment in general on how this whole process is not really set up to help the public at all. there's a lot of concern over m.t.a. staff time, but there's no concern for the public's time. the public [inaudible] if they have longer to analyze them or [inaudible] it would be less --
it would be more helpful to file an appeal immediately, so there's something really wrong with the process. the public is not allowed to do anything other than following an appeal, so if you could come up with a better method for dealing with this, and the business [inaudible] we thought what was happening with the businesses. they would like to have some kind of mitigation when things don't work out their way, but they're not allowed to even see what's going to happen, so i would like to work this out in a longer-term manner of how we can better serve the public and not worry zoo much about these matters going forward in -- too much about these matters going forward in such a fast way. >> clerk: thank you for your comments.
operations, would you unmute the next caller, please. >> hello. >> clerk: hello, welcome. >> can i be hear? >> clerk: you're being heard right now. >> thank you. my name is gary russ. i've lived at 500 north in district eight, just where the city closed twin peaks boulevard on march 8. i'm calling in on item 94 for my request for strong support for continuances or, if not accepted, the appeals. the city closed twin peaks boulevard without any input from our neighborhood and without any kind of ceqa review whatsoever. the city's premise for doing this was to create added recreational space, there by increasing social distancing and reducing therefore covid
spread. and here's what happened six months ago. there's been no increase in social distancing whatsoever at daytime when there is minimum fog, hundreds of people -- i saw mostly tourist park on burnet avenue, crest line, palo alto, and then, they walk up about a half mile to see the view. no social distancing, no masks, no effort to enforce social distancing on twin peaks at all. at night, young people gather on burnette avenue, zero masks, zero social distancing. no net benefit from closing
twin peaks boulevard. closing twin peaks boulevard has driven crime, late night, noisy, alcohol and drug-fuelled partying, and hundreds and hundreds of pounds of trash on our street and private property. none of this existed before closing twin peaks boulevard. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. >> yep. >> clerk: okay. operations, do we have another caller, please? >> thank you. can i be heard? >> clerk: yes, you're providing public comment on the continuance of the -- >> yes. >> clerk: thank you. please proceed. >> yes, i am. mary miles. i represent coalition for representation of adequate review. we have submitted requests for continuance in order to provide the public and the appellant adequate time to inform the
board of facts and legal authority supporting this appeal. our request asks for specific dates that are beyond the september 29 proposed date, and we have no idea who submitted a proposal for that, but it wasn't appellant. we did have dates certain on there to accommodate the public and the appellant. yesterday afternoon, m.t.a. and planning submitted voluminous material to this board. one week is not enough time for appellant and the public to review that material and submit comment that's informed. the city, as mr. pillpow stated, already implemented many of its proposed projects, and therefore, it will not be prejudiced by allowing these continuance requests. the board is considering only a
one week continuance on five appeals involving major projects affecting thousands of people while it allows a full month continuance on a single ceqa pe ceqa appeal in pacific heights. that is unfair treatment, and we ask for the same treatment that other appellants receive. it's the board's duty to hear the appellant and not be a mouthpiece to m.t.a. appeals to the board are the last level of appeals to resolve issues at the administrative level. they're important in the ceqa scheme and serve to obviate the need for litigation. we ask that the board continue the dates beyond september 29 and study our request. >> clerk: thank you. >> and state again, one week is not long enough.
>> clerk: thank you for your comment, miss miles. operations, do we have another caller, please? >> operator: madam clerk, that completes the queue. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. president? >> president yee: thank you. seeing no other public comment, public comment is now closed. supervisor peskin, do you have something? i see you on the roster. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i already made any comment. that's an old. >> president yee: yeah, i can only tell -- >> supervisor peskin: yes, i spoke much earlier. thank you, sir. >> president yee: madam clerk, can we actually take motions on
the continuance together? >> clerk: if you're speaking about the 2001 37 avenue project, i believe that would be already. in my conversations with the deputy city attorney ann pearson, it was recommended that each of these be taken individually for clarity's sake. >> president yee: okay. then we'll do that. why don't we go ahead and, just so -- i'll just do it my way. i'm going to take items through 75 through 78 and then right after that, 79 through 81 first. so there's been a motion to recuse -- excuse supervisor fewer. and was there a second on it? i don't remember. >> clerk: yes, it was supervisor mar. >> president yee: okay. can i have a roll call on that motion? >> clerk: on the motion to
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, then, items 74 -- 71 through 74 are continued to the meeting of october 6, 2020. madam clerk, on the motion to continue items 83 through 86. >> clerk: okay. to october 20, mr. president? >> president yee: yes. >> clerk: okay. on the motion -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection. items 83 through 86 are continued to the meeting of october 6, 2020. on the motion to continue items 87 through 90, madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to continue items 87 through 90 to october 20 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. then without objection, items 91 through 94 are continued to september 29, 2020. on the motion to continue items 95 through 98, madam clerk? >> clerk: to september 29, mr. president? >> president yee: yes. >> clerk: okay. on the motion -- [roll call]
to amend the taxes and penalties and interests relating to taxes that are subject to the common administrative provisions of that code and to add provisions for administering the cannabis business tax. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, can you please call the roll. >> clerk: on the item -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes.
>> president yee: okay. without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. madam clerk, let's go to the next item. >> clerk: item 54 is a resolution to approve the terminal 3 boarding area f news and multiconcept retail store lease number 19-0246 between mrg san francisco terminal 3, l.l.c., as tenant, and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, for a term of seven years with two one-year options to extend, and a minimum annual guarantee of 750,000 for the first year of the lease, to commence following board approval. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, go ahead and call
the roll. >> clerk: on the item -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to item 55. >> clerk: item 55 is a resolution to authorize adoption of the san francisco mental health services act three-year program and expenditure integrated plan for fiscal years 2020 through 2023. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. >> clerk: on item 55 -- [roll call]
not to exceed 18 million and to approve related documents, including an official statement, fiscal agent agreement, bond purchase agreement and continuing disclosure certificate, clarifying certain items of the rate and method of apportionment of special tax, and determining other matters in connection there with, as defined here in. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. >> clerk: okay. on items 58 and 59 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: without objection, the items are adopted unanimously. next item, please. >> clerk: next item, mr. president? okay. item 60 is a resolution to approve the form of and authorize the distribution of a preliminary official statement relating to the execution and delivery of city and county of san francisco certificates of participation for the animal care and control project and to authorize the preparation, execution, and delivery of a final official statement and to modify and ratify the approvals and terms and conditions of a
>> president yee: without objection, the item is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to item 61. >> clerk: item 61 is a resolution to levee property taxes at a combined $1.19 on each $100 valuation of taxable property for the city and county, san francisco unified school district, san francisco county office of education, san francisco community college district, bay area rapt transit district, and bay area air quality management district, and establishing a pass-through rate of .07 per $100 of assessed value for residential tenants pursuant to administrative code. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, go ahead and call
the roll. >> clerk: on the item -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, the item is adopted unanimously. next item. >> clerk: item 62 is a resolution approving for purposes of the revenue coat section 146-f, the issuance and sale of revenue obligations by
the california enterprise development authority in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 20 million to finance the acquisition, construction, renovation, rehabilitation, improvement and/or equipping of educational and related facilities to be owned and operated by san francisco day school. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll on the item. >> clerk: on the item -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes.
>> president yee: okay. without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to item 63. >> clerk: item 63 is an ordinance to order the vacation of streets in the india basin project site, located generally at innes avenue between griffith street and earl street, alone the india basin shoreline, reserving temporary public utility and access right in favor of the city and temporary easement rights for existing pg&e gas and overhead electrical facilities, authorizing the city to quitclaim its interest in approximately 3.6 acres within earl street, hudson avenue, and arrestlious waumer drive to
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: and unanimously, this item is passed on first reading. madam clerk, let's go to the next item. >> clerk: item 64 is an ordinance amending the health code to establish cleaning and disease prevention standards and practices in tourist hotel and large commercial office buildings to help contain covid-19 or other contagious health threats. >> president yee: okay. supervisor pesk -- peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. i have five very minor amendments, all of which have
been distributed to the board and which the deputy city attorney has been deemed to have been nonsubstantive in nature, and i want to thank the council for giving five of the six changes that we asked for and other parties asked here in. [inaudible] to have that section read, nothing in this article shall preclude an employee from bringing a civil action for alleged violation of this article where such civil action is recognized under the law. that would replace the previous. just a few words that are changed in that provision. at 65.3 sube sub-7 page 6, strike the word dedicated. at line 7, after primary public
entrance, insert in a hotel 100 rooms or more, and in section 625.3 subf sub-3 and subf sub-7, insert open, and at line 17, insert -- you'll see this in the word document that is before you, must remove the guest room for use, and then insert for seven days or until the department, and that would be the department of public health, determines that it's safe for reuse. those are the amendments that i hereby make a motion to move. >> president yee: is there a second? >> supervisor mandelman: second, mandelman. >> president yee: second by supervisor mandelman. roll call on the motion to amend. >> clerk: on the motion to amend item 64 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: on the item as amended -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: so the ordinance as amended is passed on first reading. [gavel]. >> president yee: madam clerk, item number 65. >> clerk: item 65 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to extend by five months to august 31, 2020, the deadline for the street-level drug distribution task force to submit its initial report to the board of supervisors and the mayor, and to revise the contents of that report, and subsequent reports, to require a summary of the
objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. madam clerk, call item number 66. >> clerk: item 66 is a resolution to confirm the nomination of alfred sims as the county veterans service officer for the city and county of san francisco. >> president yee: okay. go ahead and call the roll on this item. >> clerk: on item 66 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, the item is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to item 67. >> clerk: item 67 is a motion appointing dean schmidt, lila lahood, and jennifer wong, terms ending april 27, 2022, to the sunshine ordinance task force. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. >> clerk: on item 67 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, then, this -- the motion is approved unanimously. [gavel]. >> president yee: madam clerk, let's go to item number 68. >> clerk: item 68 is a motion to appoint cissie bonini and emma steinberg to the food security task force for an indefinite term. >> president yee: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes. i'd like to strike all
reference to seat 18, as that seat is not correct, and the seat will be up for considerations by the rules committee next week. >> president yee: is there a second? >> supervisor preston: second. >> president yee: okay. second by supervisor preston. the motion to amend, roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to amend item 68 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. the -- the item as amended passes. [gavel]. >> president yee: -- is approved. okay. madam clerk, please call the next item. i don't know whether we're at committee reports or not? >> clerk: our committee reports, that is correct. >> president yee: okay. >> clerk: item itesitems 17 0
1 -- 107 and 108 were considered by the government audit and oversight committee at a regular meeting on thursday, september 17, 2020. the chair intends to request the committee to send the following items as committee reports on tuesday, september # 2, 2020. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll on these items. >> clerk: on items 107 and 108 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to 108. >> clerk: 108, this is a resolution to urge the association of bay hair governments, abag, in its upcoming regional housing needs allocation, rhna, process to focus on san francisco's unmet needs for housing affordable to low and moderate income residents, counteract the
displacement of low and moderate income communities of color in core urban cities like san francisco and oakland, prioritize increased to the region's above mad rat rhna allocation in high resource and high opportunity jurisdictions, and limit increases in above moderate rhna allocations to bay area cities with sken ken concentrations of sensitive communities. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the item -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without resolution, the item is adopted unanimously. okay. madam clerk, let's go to our roll call for introductions. >> clerk: supervisor preston, you're first up to introduce new business. >> supervisor preston: submit. >> clerk: okay. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes. colleagues, today, i have a few items. first, i will be introducing an ordinance that would broaden the boundaries of san francisco's cultural indian district. cultural districts are one of the most important tools we as a city have to strengthen the cultural identity of neighborhoods and communities that face the dangers of gentrification and displacement. the recently formed american indian cultural district which is situated within the mission
district and the mission delores neighborhoods in areas that expands districts 8 and 9 provides a home base for the american indpopulation in san francisco to make sure that its contributions and milestones are not overwritten. due to covid and the urgent need to establish this cultural district in order to channel city resources to the american indian community as quickly as possible, we decided to approve the legislation with the original boundaries and revisit expanding the boundaries through an amendment to the legislation once things stabilized. now that most city government departments are back in operations, we're following through with our commitment to recognize a slightly broader footprint for the american indian cultural district which would be roughly bounded by 17 street, market street, duboce
avenue, and 7 street. it has been a great honor to partner with so many great leaders from the american indian community and bring this project to a fruition, especially when cultural districts are playing such a critical role in connecting our communities to the resources and information they need to navigate this crisis. i want to thank supervisor mandelman and his office as well as [inaudible] in my office for their work on this, as well. next, i will be introducing a request for a hearing on the department of public health's response to the covid response in the community.
unfortunately, studies show that the latino community was contracting the virus at a much higher rate than other san franciscans completely disproportionate to the population numbers in the city. after nearly 4,000 tests, ucsf found that 95% of those who tested positive in the mission study were latino, and at the time, latinos accounted for 55% of all covid cases in san francisco. the city's response should have been swift and decisive to mitigate the toll that covid has inflicted on our city. today, nearly five months after
the study, the situation has only gotten worse in the mission and in the latino population for the city. today, 50% of all people in san francisco with covid are latinx. the hearing i'm calling for is intended why we're not making progress. we want to know specifically how d.p.h. focuses its resources in the latinx and how has the strategy involved given the rising infection rate, and what standards are used to measure success? what is the plan to reduce the infection rate in the latinx community? i look forward to hearing from
dr. colfax and the staff, and to have a robust discussion on what we need to do to get infection rates down in the latinx community, and i will be asking this hearing be scheduled as soon as possible. and then finally, today, i'm introducing a resolution in support of california state p proposition 17, free the ballot. when passed, it will allow the california constitution to allow people who committed felonies to vote after their prison term and while they are still on parole. we will join 17 states in doing so. right now, there are 50,000 californiians w californiia californians who have completed their prison term, and yet, california denies them the most
fundamental right to participate in our democracy. make no mistake, stripping the right to vote from formerly incarcerated people is a form of voter suppression, and part of the legacy of jim crow segregation and continuing racial discrimination that proportionally locks black and brown people out of voting participation. it is time for our state to be a leader in progressive and inclusive democracy. initially authored by kevin mccarthy in sacramento, thank you to my cosponsorship, supervisors walton, preston, haney, and fewer, los angeles, san jose, oakland, and
berkeley, have all passed similar ordinances. i hope we can join them, and the rest i submit. >> clerk: okay. thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: submit. >> clerk: okay. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, madam clerk. today, i will be asking for a hearing in the way the ongoing local and federal investigations have made clear we need more accountability from city departments. this ordinance was drafted in response to the city auditor's public integrity review and contracting in public works. in that report, the city auditor found that public works issued 19 grants totaling 24 million [inaudible] which was a source of corruption of its own. the city auditor found these
grants were found in accordance with city policy only because there is no city policy, and that needs to change. the problem is larger than public works. the city issued 5,746 grant awards totaling 5.4 billion over the last four years. the city has only provided guidance to departments which does not carry the force of law and is totally nonbinding. this proposal will create a new chapter in the administrative code to create formalized standards for the notification,
selection, and participation in grant awards. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, madam clerk. couple of things for this afternoon. last friday afternoon, the board of supervisors, as you know, received an e-mail from the director of the department of human resources regarding the corruption at the equal employment opportunity office where a manager allegedly had forged documents and lied to a black employee regarding their e.e.o. case, including manipulating and deleting case lines, forging communications, dismissing lawsuits, and misrepresenting the department and the city. somehow, this was allowed to happen. there have been multiple black employees who have complained about this over the last few years as documented by the black employees alliance and as reported by employees to our
office. the state of african american employment and economic mobility in san francisco is troubling at best. we will conduct a hearing on these issues at the october 15 government and accountability committee, where d.h.r. will present and complete an audit requested by the mayor on how departments are doing on the mayor's ten employee mandates given in 2018. today, i am also requesting another hearing, along with supervisor peskin, to receive recommendations on restructuring and reforming the equal employment opportunity office and an analysis of the best practices of similar urban jurisdictions with c.e.o. offices, including core functions of the c.e.o. offices within overall city government
>> which is the save our stages. which was introduced this past july in the united states senate by senators john cornen and amy cobichar providing $10 billion in aid to small, live venue operators. as we all know, the covid-19 pandemic has devastated small businesses and forced non essential businesses to cease operations in march of 2020. while some businesses have slowly reopened, at largely
reduced capacity, many entertainment venues in san francisco and across the country remain shuttered with no set plan for reopening. they have provided bid and the businesses and to our country business and workers by passing the small business administration program and it's failed to meet the need with millions having been given to multi million and billion dollar corporation and instead of the small businesses they were intended to support. in particular, our beloved small venues even and community theats provides greater flexibility and is available through the ppp program when it comes to and we have to act fast if which expect the business to survive the pandemic. the live event industry is experiencing upwards of 90% revenue loss with venues and
theaters predicted to remain closed well into 2021 due to safety concerns posed by large gatherings. without support from congress, 90% of these venues across america also report that they will be forced to close their doors forever. this is important to us locally and nationally. san francisco is famous for its unique and diverse night life that continues to shape art and culture across the globe and protecting this legacy is essential and is the need to make sure that san francisco continues to be a place where we all can see each other and enjoy life and in corridors because they hope to find a critical part of who we are and they play a role in our local economy and according to an update of the controllers office of economic impact study in 2018, 3,418 night life establishments in san
francisco employ 63,000 workers and generate $7.2 billion for city. a permanent loss of independent venues and theaters will have tremendous economic impacts on the city of san francisco and the country at large including venue owners and staff and also the artists, the companies have individuals that provide renters and tourism industry which rely on them for entertainment for their guests and the restaurants and bars and taxi and ride share companies and and more. we need our night life venues, our cultural identity and a portion of our economy are at stake. the save our stages act will authorization them to grant eligible live venue operators producers, promoters, talent representatives out of this establish fund and it has bipartisan support with 42
co-sponsors and we need it to pass now and our venues rely on this support and i want to thank my co-sponsors, ronen, walton and preston and join the many dozens of independent venues in our city that have been organized for the passage of this fact in calling for us to support the save our stages act so we can prevent devastating impacts on the induce tremendous and on our culture and economy. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor. >> supervisor mandelman. >> submit. >> ok, thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you, madam clerk. today i have two items. first, pursuant to charter section 9.117, i'm calling for a hearing to receive the report covering fiscal year 2018-2019
and to hear the audit plans for fiscal year 2019-2020 to 2020. given the on going fiscal challenge and gren community needs in our city, it's more important than ever to ensure our city finances in order and that all plans in every dollar is used in accordance with the intended purpose. secondly, i'm interesting an emergency ordinance to reenact the right to re'em employment. this policy was passed by the bored on june 23rd and enacted on july 3rd. since then we reenacted it and i introduced a regular ordinance that would codify this policy to provide certainty as the public-health emergency conditions. that regular non emergency back to work ordinance moved through the legislative process for our
considertation will keep the right to reemployment in effect. as our city allows more business to reopen, and more jobs again become available, this one will ensure that laid off workers are given the chance to be retired through a fair process rather than replaced. and the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam clerk, thank you mr. president, colleagues. first of all, i would like to associate myself with the comments of supervisor walton with regards to the revelations at the eeo office and they are profoundly disturbing. i've spoken to the mayor's chief-of-staff about this and to the head of our department of human resources who, as we all know, will be retiring shortly. this, in many ways, is more scandalous than what we learned
about terrible but relative low petty corruption that was commit bid mohammad nuru and other senior officials in our government. this really goes to the core of pair employment practices and i am profoundly doubled by this and look forward to that hearing and thank you supervisor walton, for his leadership in that matter. we are close to the end of the month, september 30th, the expiration date of the state wide commissioner eviction protection regiment and later this evening, item 111 on our calender will be vote ong a resolution urging the governor of the great state of california to take immediate action to extend the suspension, emergency
suspension of state laws that pre-empt our ability to protect small businesses at the local level and it's absurd to think if they will have back rent and regular rent when so many are operated at limited if any capacity so today, together with supervisor preston, we're introducing a 60 day emergency ordinance and the most we can do to prohibit evictions and small businesses for their inability to pay rent. for extending relief, we're will be introduction emotional and i apologize for this to have it heard as committee of the whole
next tuesday and thank you president yee for granting that request. if all goes well, the governor of california will take his own action and if he does so, our mayor, who acted before, can take a similar action. because what we really need is relief from the state to untie our hands so we can continue the work that mayor breed and this board have done to prevent the worst catastrophe to our residential and commercial businesses and we won't have that hearing next week and and so we'll see how that goes. and that relief is part of this fight and these stop gap measures really beg for more holistic relief and i know that both this emergency ordinance, as well as a permanent ordinance and we are submitting today
contain hardship for hand lords and property owners and many of whom are hampered by their own mortgage and other debt obligations and to the commercial tenants in jay-town and the small business owners and their employees in "northbeatnorthnorth beach and n francisco. i profoundly want to thank you for sticking with it and continuing to do what you really do best which is to adapt and thrive even during these trying times. the rest i submit. >> thank you, madam clerk. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. mr. president, seeing no names on the roster it seems to be the end of the introduction of new business. let's go to public comment.
if you need assistance contact my office at (415)554-5184 and we have someone standing by to assist you and i'll give you the telephone number. it's 14156550001 and the meeting i.d. number is 146 750 0645 and press pound twice if you have already dialed in -- mr. president, did you call me? >> i was going to say, just be clear, we will give one minute to public comment. if you've dialed in early and you've been listening to the proceedings all along and you wish to get in line to provide your testimony you will press star 3 now. this is for general public comment. the prompt that you are lining for is you have been unmuted and you can just begin your
testimony. if you are dial in now, the number is on the television and on the internet. when you are ready, again, just press star 3 when you are ready to get in line. it's the best practice you can -- you will miss the prompt if your location is loud. i want to say about a moment public comment today and of course the items would then subject managers jurisdiction of the board not on the agenda and can be spoke on and you can speak on the approval of the meeting minutes and talk to committee calender and those are items 111 through 119ment all
other items on this agenda, 1-68, as well as 107 through 108 are not eligible for your testimony today as they have all had their dually noticed public hearing fulfilled at committee. you can also speak on the meeting minutes as well. i want to just be clear the items 29-52 contain the annual appropriation ordinance. these are the matters associated with the city's budget and these are not items that are eligible for public comment. if you do happen to cross over in the line of public comment items, i'll just pause your time and we'll do that one time and we'll redirect you gently. second to last point, unfortunately it's worth mentioning in advance that the board of supervisors will not tolerate discriminatory or harassing remarks made at this public meeting. pursuant to city policy, along
with federal state and local laws the city invites public comment or criticisms on its policies, procedures and programs, services, acts or omissions on the board but there's nothing in state law that will confer a privilege or protection for expressions that constitute a discriminatory or harassing remark. all right, we have a couple of interpreters who are still with us, i believe. i would love for them to interest themselves in succession. we'll begin with agnes lie. >> i want to confer one thing. is it public time is one or two minutes? >> yes, thank you so much. we're providing public comment up to one minute. >> thank you. [voice of interpreter]
vladimir puti[voice of interpre] >> thank you so much, madam clerk. >> thank you all three for still being able to be with us this evening. mr. president, that concludes my comments. >> supervisor yee: let's get started. >> operations, let's hear from the first caller, please. >> welcome caller, you have one minute. >> caller: what can you say one minute that frankly i'm going to breakdown and cry so it doesn't matter. i saw today in the paper and the granada hotel which is senior housing like the broad moore, you know. needed, needed. and by that for supportive housing. my street corner there's a hotel for sale cheaper, a residential
hotel that's been used for tourism and it's upgraded to ada and it's mostly empty now where the knob hill neighborhoods are and it's been living since the apartment was burned and it's a lovely place. across the building there's 88 units also used illegally and now partly reconverted. things like that need to be bought. and motels, tourist hotels, and so fourth. the gra mad a and the broadmoore are places where people who i know have gone to live. people who are not going to qualify for supportive housing and it's -- > >> next caller, please. >> caller: wow, one minute. it's not enough time. first of all, i'd like to say
that something needs to be done about how you call for public comment at the committee meetings. because there's been a couple times where i've been watching on sfgovtv on the stream online and they've said, call for public comment and given the number i've called as soon as they said and because of the delay, it's been late and i haven't been able to provide public comment. so i feel like my brown act rights and i love the brown act, as you know, i feel like in those cases my brown act rights are kind of violated because there was not enough time given for me to even call it because of the delay. it changes all the time which is weird. sfgov gov needs to get rid of the lower third. shrink it down so we can see who is in the meeting. i appreciate most of the things about supervisors have done and and i don't support --
>> thank you for your comments. operations, is there another caller, please. > >> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> yes. >> caller: yes, this is gilbert crystal of district 8. i'm calling about transit issues and transit lack of transit. muni still has not restored service to many muni lines during the pandemic that they cut. it's time to restore services and lines that were cut during the pandemic. muni needs to open the subway and open the f line. muni is in a black hole of financial black hole and fiscal
irresponsibility muni is mismanaged and corrupt. we need to fix muni so they can get around the city. poor people are kicked to the curb. a bus service that is operating is only operating the only reason there are buses on the line is because an election is coming. >> i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm representing our deckhands of golden gate ferry. my comments today are regarding
two of your supervisors. it's on the golden gate bridge board and they have a board meeting where we asked the berdych members to support us and postponing a notice until january 1st and 2021. we were disappointed and sadly, to hear that the board members from the board of supervisors and what i would ask is well that any further issues golden gate bridge to layoff employees and would be supported by the supervisors and you would fill your empty board seats and it's been so distressing for all the workers there the 240 that could be laid off to think everyday as they go to work this could get the day i get my notice from the district.
operations, please unmute the next caller, please. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can, welcome. >> thank you, good morning. my name is shane white and i'm the president of the local 1575 that represent 250 front line essential hard-working bus operators and golden gate transit that connect san francisco to the north bay. i want to echo some of the fronts from marina, who just spoke. i'm happy to hear the supervisors have spoken up and bus operators by name and how the city took care of these heroes during the pandemic. i'm proud and my front line group and hope that they are taking care of as well. to echo what marina said again, a couple supervisors, went the opposite way and i'm hoping that there's going to be another vote that needs to come up to approve
layoffs and we hope these can be staved off until the after the first of the year. with the holidays coming up, i just want everybody to know and the pandemic, mental health issues are prevalent and suicide and no one needs a layoff hanging over there head while that are dragging a bus through san francisco during a pandemic. >> thank you for your comments. operations next caller, please. >> caller: hello, my name is bennett and i represent the freedom socialist party with a storefront office in district 6. we support the resolution calling on governor newsome to expend the moratorium of evictions on small businesses. we join other community groups that for bid rent that is not paid during the moratorium. they should be given a full year
lifted to re pay any deferred rent, small businesses are a part of the heart and soul of our communities and allowing evictions to proceed without during the pandemic or service landowner and for gender communities. the fsp itself calls that we believe the city of san francisco should itself set an example by doing no less than immediately creating city ordinance to establish a rent holiday for all residents, community groups until the end of the covid-19 emergency. to protect renters, not big businesses, those use be airbnb or landlords. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. operations, next caller, please. >> caller: hello, i'm speaking on item 111. i really appreciate that you are doing this proactively to help our businesses. i am very active in japan town
and familiar with the situation of the merchants and the japan center mall. and i just wanted to ask you, please, to do everything you can and be creative and active in finding a broad-based support for these people. they are, i'm in awe of them. they're facing a year where they will be paying a month and a half commercial rent, com an area charges, publicity charges, and there's an automatically increase in their leases. and they are facing it and working so hard to stay in business to keep our communities and our cities alive and vibrant and so do all you can to help them. >> thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please.
>> hello. i would like to acknowledge that i would like to acknowledge -- can you hear me? >> i would like to and the people, thank you president yee, supervisor ronen and mandelman for your support and the rest of the board of supervisors for your time today. my name is mary travis salas and i am my mother side and on my father's side. i am a mother, grandmother and great grand mother. i represent an elder from the american indian cultural district board. i have lived in san francisco all my life. the need to expand the already legislative boundaries of the american indian cultural
district is important. we need land for our cultural centers, ceremonials stage and community garden and cultural district processes. we should have already had this recognition and already had a designated district to build and support our communities and we need to be acknowledged in this city and have a voice when concerns are discussed by the leadership and government regarding underserved communities and the need for funding and services. >> thank you for your comments. >> operations, is there another caller, please? >> hello, supervisors, my name is dianne and i'm a staff attorney at the asian pacific islander legal outreach. we're working with the firm of perk kins coy to represent
tenants who are small business owners renting space in the japan center mall. i just want to thank supervisors peskin and preston for taking the lead in introducing this emergency ordinance. these tenants have been almost out of business for almost five months and they're being asked to pay back all their rent by october 1st. we need your support to help extend this moratorium and workout a deal for our tenants that they can stay in japan town. we cannot lose these tenants as they account t account to 90% in town. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> thank you, very much. it's a hard job. i can't do what you guys do.
i would fall asleep. >> sir, can you speak into your phone. we can barely hear you. >> ok. >> well, i guess he hung up. operations is there another call, please. >> caller: can you hear me? hi, my name is joyce and i'm a resident of district 3 in speaking in support of the ordinances introduced by supervisors peskin and preston. to stoppie convictions and extend the moratorium on rents for small businesses effected by covid. in the 1970 i was involved in commuting organizing to stop the further destruction of the japan town-chinatown malil a town communities created by redevelopment. fast forward to 2020 and the effects of the
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on