Skip to main content

tv   Police Commission  SFGTV  December 5, 2020 12:50pm-1:46pm PST

12:50 pm
vote] we did not take public comment. supervisor ronen, we'll finish the roll call. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes.
12:51 pm
>> supervisor peskin: i like to make a motion to rescind the previous vote. >> supervisor fewer: second. >> clerk: once before we have taken this item without objection. >> president yee: we'll take this item without objection. we did this because i forgot to call on the public to see if they have any comments on the continuance of this item. if there's any public comment on the continuance itself but not the item of continuance. you can get in line. >> clerk: operations it we please hear from the first caller. >> we have no callers in the
12:52 pm
queue. >> president yee: please call the roll again. >> clerk: i want to recite this item. item 59, it's referred to the budget and finance committee for a public hearing on december 9th. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes.
12:53 pm
>> president yee: the motion i assume made by supervisor walton again and seconded by supervisor fewer passes. madam clerk, let's go back item number 28. >> clerk: item 28 is a resolution to approve an agreement between the city and the sun set scavenger company, golden gate disposal doing business as recology golden gate and recology san francisco, the contractors for refuge service resulting in $62.5 million in total compensation to contractors term december 1, 2020 with november 30, 2026. >> president yee: i wanted to get some discussion around this
12:54 pm
contract by several supervisors in light of new information, i like to entertain a motion to send this contract back to committee to allow for more discussion on the type and consideration. is there a second? >> supervisor peskin: i'm happy to send it back. i like to say a few words. that will be a motion. >> president yee: is there a second? second by supervisor haney. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you mr. president. , colleagues, members of the public. this is a remarkably complex piece of public policy that dates 88 years ago, 1932.
12:55 pm
wherein people in the city and county passed a measure that's given what we call recology, a monopoly. it was sunset scavenger and golden gate disposal. it de-matured into any number of subsidiary organizations, north cal and now recology. we have some profound public policy decisions we will need to make together. if you look at the 1932 ordinance, there are many things that actually are not a part of the monopoly. i want to say that for the record. we have had yet another unfortunate experience to date
12:56 pm
where one third of the board was charged with wrong doing. yes, i want to send this back to committee. i think that we all have to sharpen our pencils and figure out how to do right by this. we can go back to the ballot and undo the 1932 ordinance. i think there are many things that we can do as a public policy body in addition to that. i can lay those things out. >> supervisor fewer: i wanted to mention to my colleague that when we heard this item in budget, we had not heard the news about recology and that news came after we had taken the
12:57 pm
vote to send it to committee with a positive recommendation. i had conversations, i wanted to say that the process for individual residential rate payers to raise rates on recology. it's a different process than to determine whether a city contract. i want to emphasize that those are two different processes and i'm happy to vote to send this back to committee. i thought we will continue it for a week. i'm not so sure if you think that it should come to my committee since may be this has to do more with government oversight and audit. i wanted to make that suggestion. >> president yee: good point. >> supervisor fewer: i think it's a really good point.
12:58 pm
[laughter] >> president yee: yes, it is. i wanted to say that, this will give the opportunity for office of city of administrators a chance to relook at the contract itself. it doesn't have to be done really quickly necessarily. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president is there anybody on this call from the office of contract administration would like to speak to the contract? >> president yee: i actually spoke to them today. i asked them to be on here. i hope they are on here. anybody here from o.c.a.? >> supervisor fewer: i think she's on mute.
12:59 pm
>> can you hear me? i apologize, my video is not working now. i'm acting director of the office of contract administration. as just discussed, we're in agreement of referring this item back to committee given in light of the new information related to recology. that said, i think there's some questions about how we would move forward to ensure services are provided to the apartments moving forward. it is my office -- my office ensure services will be provided at the level of service that is
1:00 pm
needed until this issue is resolved. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: can you explain to us how this contract got this far? >> yes. this contract we began negotiations with this contract around february of 2020. with recology this was in general -- we were preparing the contract terms and conditions before we communicated with the company regarding our proposed new terms and conditions. this is before any information
1:01 pm
about any public information about the public corruption scandal that had occurred. that said, we had no communication with the department of public works. the contract itself was negotiated over the term from february essentially to this time more or less. again, without any information or knowledge of any other investigations that may have been occurring, by any organization or government agency with recology. we worked closely with the department of environment. rate structure that has been proposed and what went before the budget and finance
1:02 pm
committee. it ends up saving the city money. it's very much in line with department of environment zero waste. it helps to incentivize department departments to align with the zero waste goals. are there any other questions? >> supervisor peskin: is there anybody here from the department of environment? >> there should be couple here from department of environment. i'm checking to make sure they're available. >> good evening supervisors. >> supervisor peskin: i don't see you but i can hear you. can i ask you this question?
1:03 pm
does d.o.e. consider itself to be a regulator? >> do we consider ourselves to be a regulator? >> supervisor peskin: yes. >> i think it depends on whether we have authority throughout ordinances, we're able to regulate or not. >> supervisor peskin: is there somebody here from the public works department? >> i believe i see julia dawson from department of public works.
1:04 pm
>> i'm here. >> supervisor peskin: [indiscern ible] i see you. >> president yee: go ahead supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: have you been involved with any of the rates 2017, 2006? >> i was only involved with the 2017 rate process. the other rate processes were before i joined public works but public works was involved in those rate processes because it's their responsibility. >> supervisor peskin: in 2017, this is not personal any way what so ever, your role in the 2017 rate was what?
1:05 pm
>> i was the departmental lead for the financial analysis. >> supervisor peskin: which means you as staff recommend then director, the rate? is that correct? >> we perform the financial analysis and did the staff work that was supporting all of the public hearings that involved the rate proposal and the ultimate development of the rate. it is a partnership. there were also memberships of the department of the environment that do evaluation on the operational component and public works responsibility is more on the financial fiduciary review. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. dawson. that is a very clear iteration
1:06 pm
of how the process works. at that time, in 2017, when you recommended as staff, did the then director change your recommendation? if so, to what extent? >> the only change that was made between the kind of hearing and final recommendation related to making a slight reduction of the value of the increase for apartment rates of apartments that are between two and five units. those raters. slightly reduced and the other rates were adjusted but the overall value of the rate increase remained the same. >> supervisor peskin: you as staff and your team recommended to the then head of d.p.w.
1:07 pm
appealed? >> yes, that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: it consist the of what individuals at that time? >> jennifer johnson, michael carlin and ted egan. >> supervisor peskin: those people represented what individual agencies pursuant to what law? >> city administrator, the public utilities commission and the controller pursuant to the laws that govern the disposal board. >> supervisor peskin: ms. johnso n was presenting for who? >> city administrator. >> supervisor peskin: other parties were representing for who? >> michael carlin representing the p.u.c. ted egan represent controller.
1:08 pm
>> supervisor peskin: ms. dawson , i really appreciate that. do you believe that the rate was in any way compromised by what we have come to learn the last few days? >> no. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for that very candid explanation. >> president yee: okay. thank you. the motion on the floor is to send it back to committee to budget committee and then there was a suggestion by supervisor fewer to maybe send it to g.a.o. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, there's one other little weird detail that i like discuss. which has to do with the way
1:09 pm
community benefit district charge. maybe ms. dawson, who might not be the right person to talk to about this. cbds are being charged by recology. if ms. dawson is not the right person, we can move on to other people from public works. i want to make sure that issues being dealt with. >> i can speak to it briefly if you like. so, the issue on cbd c.b.d. is g
1:10 pm
addressed. we're confident it will result in really likely no payment for services that the c.b.d.s doing. in other words, the amount of work that they are doing, they will be receiving credit for. they would be covered by what we described as city tons, which are tons that public works is allocated to remove litter from the streets. we discussed this with supervisor haney as well on monday. he should be familiar with this
1:11 pm
proposal. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor haney, anything you want to add? >> supervisor haney: that's correct. i appreciate you bringing it up supervisor peskin. we've been in touch working with the c. c. c.b.d.s and d.p.w. i think there's going to be resolution to it outside the context of in contract. we can also provide an update on that meeting when this goes back to committee if that works for you. thank you. >> president yee: would you like to keep the motion as is or would you like to modify it to send it back to g.a.o.? >> supervisor peskin: i like to as previously mentioned, send the matter back to committee. >> president yee: okay. that's the motion and there was
1:12 pm
a second i believe. was it seconded? >> clerk: yes, supervisor safai. >> president yee: let's evote on it. >> clerk: this is a motion to send the item back to the bunt and finance committee before it came from. [roll call vote]. there are 10 ayes and one no
1:13 pm
with supervisor fewer in the dissent. >> president yee: this motion passes 10-1 vote. let's go to the next item. 29. >> clerk: resolution to retroactively approve a contract through may 28, 20 twin and for $19.3 million contract increase for total amount of $28.7 million. >> supervisor safai: thank you. i wanted to know if there's anyone from h.s.a. here to talk about this contract? it's a retroactive. i have couple of different questions and i'm sorry i wasn't able to attend the budget and
1:14 pm
finance committee. i do have questions. we're increasing this by $20 million retroactively. is there anyone from h.h.a. to talk about this item? my first question through the chair, can you talk why we're amending the contract retroactively?
1:15 pm
>> unfortunately, it's retroactive because this program is actually -- it has been extended on a month-to-month basis. we prepared the material to submit for resolution. unfortunately, by that time was retroactive. >> supervisor safai: which was the initial size of the contract? >> the initial contract was approximately $9 million. that was for the period from --
1:16 pm
the initial period was starting may 29, 2020 to december 31, 2020. that will be through may 28, 2021. that's why the amendment -- >> supervisor safai: i might have a few more questions. first and foremost, i want to say as a supervisor representing part of the town that has significant number of seniors, many of them former city employees, civil servants, others i heard lot of great things about this program. and programs and quality of the food. i wanted to you wants little bit of the restrictive requirements just to seniors. there's a lot of families that are living in generational
1:17 pm
houses. they have their seniors that are raising minors or transitional aged youth. when this program is delivering food, they're only delivering food to the senior. i understand that there's restriction. i understand if i'm correct, the general fund providing about two thirds of the cost and the other remainder is provided by california governor's office. we are footing good portion of the bill. i like to understand little bit more about the restrictive nature set on the program and secondly, the fact that we're in this pandemic, there's a lot of different needs that we've had to meet. i know in my district, we had to set up a significant number of food pantries to meet those that are experiencing food insecurity. when we heard about this program
1:18 pm
and, i heard wonderful things about it, i'm trying to understand some of the restrictive nature and whether or not there's a way we can continue support some of the seniors that are raising minors. the second piece of it is, in terms of the vendors that coming from and throughout the grid, are we doing anything to work with local businesses? lot of our small businesses, lot of brick and mortar restaurants struggle during this pandemic. i just wonder through this contract, are we utilizing all of the ability to serve and support some of the businesses that are hurting during these times? i feel like there could be some improvement that we can make to this contract, especially since
1:19 pm
we're increasing the amount. we're more than doubling it.
1:20 pm
>> particularly those individuals that fell below the 200% federal poverty level. i believe it's 60% of our clients that we are serving through this program are not eligible based on the state guidelines for the program. >> supervisor safai: is the majority of the money for this program still coming from our general fund? >> yes, it is. >> supervisor safai: we still have to follow the state restrictions or is it just restrictions on the money we're getting from the state? >> we are following the state guidelines that for the clients that are not eligible that those are 100% general fund clients. >> supervisor safai: are we able
1:21 pm
to serve people more than just seniors? do you know when you're serving those families, are you serving intergenerational families. are you serving one meal? >> i don't have the answer to that question. i will refer to melissa mcghee who is program manager over the program. >> this is melissa from the department of disable aging services. the eligibility requirements are such that the person who's eligible for the program meets those requirements. which are over 65 or 64 with
1:22 pm
chronic conditions. >> supervisor safai: okay. what about the question with regard to the vendors that you're using? are you working and supporting some of our small businesses? >> right now, we're working with 46 restaurants. off the grid is the contract. we work with individual restaurants to meet needs through the district and that sort of thing.
1:23 pm
>> supervisor safai: are they evenly distributed throughout the city? are these 46 restaurants drawn from all the districts? >> yes. all districts and all cuisine types. they try to rotate. they try to rotate among the restaurants. restaurants are contacting them to get -- [indiscernible] >> clerk: her computer battery is diminished. >> supervisor safai: that's okay. 46 restaurants right now but they're coming from all over the city and divided throughout all the districts? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: those were my main questions. one thing that will be helpful for me personally will be if you can provide us with those
1:24 pm
restaurants. it's good to know that the guidelines require a senior being alone or with another eligible individual. that's something i wasn't able to find with the information. i appreciate you answering that question. >> i have to list the restaurants. >> supervisor safai: that will be great. would want to make sure that there's restaurants in different places struggling in my district. i want to make sure that they are participating in the program and all those districts are equally participating. thank you for answering the question. i appreciate this. that's the information that i needed. >> president yee: i have one question. restaurants are participating, are people picking up the food? >> it's delivered to the recipient's home address. >> president yee: okay, thank
1:25 pm
you. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on item 29-[roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: thank you.
1:26 pm
without any objection, the resolution is adopted. item 30. >> clerk: resolution to retroactively authorize the san francisco department of public health to accept and spend $155,000 grant from the office of the assisted secretary for preparedness and through the california department of public health through progressmatic funds entitled coronavirus for the term june 30, 2021. >> president yee: call the roll. [roll call vote]
1:27 pm
there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. resolution is adopted unanimously. let's go to item number 31. >> clerk: resolution to authorize the public defender to develop and documentary meeting documenting the work of the public defender's office and experience of its client to educate the public about the criminal judge system and enter five-year agreement with even/odd films and compound. >> president yee: please call the roll. >> clerk: [roll call vote]
1:28 pm
there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: resolution is adopted. item 32. >> clerk: resolution to authorize department of homelessness housing h.s.a. for up to $49 million of home key
1:29 pm
grant funds from the california department of housing and community development to episcopal community service for the acquisition of grenada hotel. to commit up to $32 million for project expenses and to affirm the ceqa determination. >> president yee: please call the roll. supervisor peskin. [please stand by]
1:30 pm
1:31 pm
>> president yee: okay, let me have a second. >> clerk: no, mr. president, unless there's an objection. >> president yee: okay. i move to continue it. let's go to 33. >> clerk: a resolution to approve the early care and education five-year spending plan for the "babies and families first fund," early care and education for all initiatives. >> president yee: anyone try to contact h.i.h.? >> clerk: my staff are trying to reach her. i would, however, suggest when an issue like this occurs that the mayor's office is reaching out -- >> president yee: okay, that's right, i forgot. >> president yee, thank you. dillon snyder should be on shortly. >> president yee: okay. we're on 33. thank you very much. i have been wanting to do this for a long time, to pass this spending plan. since 2018.
1:32 pm
and so this spending plan is really not a detailed spending plan. it was -- it was a result of having lots and lots of community meetings and basically gives a framework to spend it once we get the money and to give some priorities to -- to the categories of how you want to spend. so that includes making sure that there's funding to raise teachers' salaries substantially, and to get rid of the need of low-income families, about 2,000 people wait on a wait list for child care. and then also to provide subsidies for moderate and middle income, once it's
1:33 pm
structured. and other things that could be supported by the quality of furthering an education program. so you will see this and, again, i want to give a lot of credit to the office of the work with the leader in that office for last two years or so. and they're doing a marvelous job over there, just waiting patiently for the funding to come in. so today it's really about overall spending plan. we might get confused in the next few weeks because i'm introducing and getting stuff done to move some other issues forward with the spending itself to some specific thing that i'll talk about later. so, okay, why don't we go ahead and take -- supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. president. i just want to take a moment to thank you for your leadership on this item.
1:34 pm
and on this issue. as somebody that represents one of the highest concentration of family child care providers, as someone that has worked closely with you and watched you on this board lead on this issue consistently, i just want to thank you for your tremendous work in this area. this five-year spending plan was put together a couple years ago and it's been worked on consistently. and i know that you are deeply involved in that. as you said, the office of early child care has done tremendous work, but so has you and so has your office. so i just want to thank you for that. and really underscore the way in which this impacts at least my district in particular, but the city at large, how having this investment, having ensuring that these early education professionals are receiving much-needed raise, and how families and children of color are definitely impacted by access to good quality child care, and then one of my biggest
1:35 pm
concerns, and you know, i really appreciate the work that you've done on that. as you have transition off the board, i plan on taking on that mantle as we talked about and continuing to use you as a resource and a reference in the work that you've done. so i want to just thank you for that and really underscore the importance of this, laying out this work and how our black, latino and a.p.i. children in particular and the family child care providers and the providers of early child care that do this work are going to really benefit from this plan and the money that was garnered and has been garnered through this. and so thank you, thank you for this opportunity. >> president yee: all righty. supervisor mar? >> thank you, i want to echo supervisor safai's words of appreciation for your tremendous leadership on early care and childhood education issues and the family and first fund is an
1:36 pm
incredible, important part of your legacy on the board and as board president. and also for my district, it's incredibly important measure with so many working families in the sunset district. so thanks again. and also thanks to all of the child care and preschool providers that have worked closely with you on these important initiatives. and i'd like to be added as a co-sponsor. >> president yee: okay, thank you. okay, roll call, please. >> clerk: on item 33 [roll call]
1:37 pm
there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. then this resolution is adopted. i believe that is dillon -- was going to come on -- i'm not sure if he's on yet? from h.s.h. dillon, are you there yet? >> i don't see him just yet.
1:38 pm
>> president yee: why don't you call 34 and 35 together. >> clerk: item 34 and 35 are two resolutions that receive and approve two annual reported submitted by the improvement district law of 1994 and the district management agreement with the city. item 34 receives and approves an annual report for the japantown community benefit district. and item 35 for the yerba buena community benefit district, for fiscal year 2018-2019. >> president yee: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president. so before we hear this as you may know that the thursday before last, an interesting issue appeared relative to charming the community benefit districts with what seems like an extraordinary amount of money that should be paid for by the city.
1:39 pm
so to that end, before we vote on these matters i would like to hear from d.p.h. -- sorry, d.p.w. and from the ucbds. >> president yee: so is there anybody from d.p. -- >> yes, chris corgas was invited but i don't see him logged on. i will try to get ahold of him. >> supervisor peskin: i make a motion to continue this until later in the meeting. just so we're clear, this is a responsibility of the city that pre-dated c.b.d.s, and why c.b.d. are being charged with this is unclear to the supervisor. so, yeah, let's dial back in on that. >> president yee: sounds good, madam clerk, let's go to 36.
1:40 pm
madam clerk, you're frozen or something. >> clerk: yes, sorry. i'm working them out. [laughter] sometimes it gets away from me. item 36 through 38 are three resolutions that approve the management agreements with the non-profit owners administration for the management of the property-based community benefit districts referred to as c.b.d.s. item 36 approves the c.b.d. known as the noe valley community benefit district, item 37 is the c.b.d. known as the castro community benefit district. and item 38, the fisherman's wharf landside community district. all with the streets and highway code for a period commencing upon board approval of june 30, 2025. >> president yee: so supervisor, peskin, you want to continue these also? >> supervisor peskin: well, i would like to refer to section
1:41 pm
6.1 of the c.b.d. management agreements. and then in the absence of mr. corgis, i'd like to continue these matters. >> president yee: madam clerk, let's go to 39. >> clerk: mr. president, item 39 through 41? >> president yee: yes. >> clerk: okay. items 39 through 41 are three historical property contracts. under administrative code, the mills act. item 39 with the contract between pacific stables owner l.l.c. and the owner of 450 pacific avenue in the city. and item 40, approves the contract between inco trust, and the owners of 1315 waller street and the city. and item 41, approves a contract between jonathan dascola and kamariah sulaiman dascola, and
1:42 pm
the recorder to execute and to record the historical property contract for all three items. mr. president, were you muted just now? >> president yee: hmm,kind of froze. i see that you guys are speaking and, you know, on the screen it's indicating that you're muted. supervisor peskin, did you want to say something? >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, based on a discussion that we had in the government committee and the subsequent conversations, i would like to refer item 39 back to the government audit and oversight committee and that is a
1:43 pm
1:44 pm
>> sorry, i thought that it was a different item that you were sending back. makes sense. >> president yee: roll call on the motion to send it back to committee. >> clerk: on the motion -- >> supervisor peskin: chair mar, i meant member haney. >> clerk: on the notion send item 39 to the g.a.o. committee [roll call] there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: send it back to committee. madam clerk, the roll call on 40 and 41. >> clerk: on items 40 and 41
1:45 pm
[roll call] there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay, then without objection the resolutions are adopted. i believe that chris corgis is among us. so maybe we could go back to item.