tv BOS Budget and Finance Sub- Committee SFGTV December 5, 2020 1:45pm-4:01pm PST
>> clerk: 34 -- >> president yee: through 38 i believe. >> clerk: yes, that's correct. >> president yee: okay. chris, are you there? >> yes, president yee, apologies to all of the supervisors. i have issues on my side. >> president yee: supervisor peskin, you had questions? >> supervisor peskin: yes, mr. president. to mr. corgis, through the president, related to the issue discussed thursday before last, as to recology charges that were raised by my colleagues, supervisor haney, that turned out to be pretty significant. how are we doing? >> we got all of the c.b.d.s together, except for one who couldn't make it to -- >> supervisor peskin: which one? >> the east coast c. bmple d. known as recon hill. the concerns were raised to me as were the castro's.
we had a meeting on wednesday with representatives from recology as well as the director of the trade from public works. based off my conversations with the c.b.d. following the meeting, the ones that i was able to get ahold of, they were cautiously optimistic going forward. i'm going to keep on all parties making sure that we're still making progress going forward. director, it's been fantastic since he's been taking public works to listening to the c.b.d.s and responding relatively quickly. >> supervisor peskin: mr. corgis, thank you for that report. are you here from public works? >> clerk: the director is not currently on the attendance
list. >> supervisor peskin: is there a representative for recology? >> i don't see anyone on the list for recology. for public works, we had deborah, and bernice and jeremy spitz invited. >> supervisor peskin: all right, proceed. >> they were invited but they're not in attendance. it doesn't look like anybody from public works is here right now. >> supervisor peskin: mmm, mmm, mmm, mmm. >> president yee: what would you like to do? >> supervisor peskin: continue the items.
>> president yee: okay. -- >> just a point of clarification, president yee. >> president yee: yes. >> through the chair, supervisor peskin, are you continuing to another date and time or just for the duration of this meeting? >> supervisor peskin: well, through the president to supervisor walton, i'd be happy to have mr. fried or a representative from recology to do this before we're done. if that does not happen i'd be happy to continue this item for one week to the meeting of 8, december. >> supervisor walton: thank you. >> president yee: okay. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: just to clarify, is this with relation to these multiple items or one in particular? which item are you proposing -- >> supervisor peskin: so to the president through to supervisor
peskin and we can ask mr. corgis who is here to respond as to how many c.b.d.s are being charged by recology for things that i fundamentally believe that is a matter of public policy that should be paid for by the city. so we -- we can ask mr. corgis to tell us how many c.b.d.s are paying recology now from our hearing the thursday before last, we know that jaytown was paying for it, and that was not right. >> again, mr. president, is this a motion with respect to all four of the -- or the five of the c.b.d.s here or directed -- >> supervisor peskin: so that we are clear, through the president, to the supervisor
preston, item 34, item 35, item 36 and 37 and 38. those would be the items that if we do not hear from public works before the end of this meeting that i pose to continue to 8 of december. >> super peskin -- sorry,. >> president yee: who is speaking? >> (indiscernible). >> president yee: excuse me. let's figure out who is speaking. >> jeremy spitz with public works. >> president yee: i think this is a question from supervisor peskin. >> i'll do my best. i didn't hear the question.
>> supervisor peskin: mr. spitz, this is aaron peskin through the president of the board. can you characterize the conversations between recology and public works and the various community benefit districts as it relates to the amount that they're being charged for cleaning up garbage that is generally a responsibility of the city and county of san francisco? >> i believe that through the president to supervisor peskin, i believe that julia spoke earlier, and we have -- we're working on this issue with recology and the c.b.d.s where they would get a credit based on the number of blocks that they are sweeping up. i believe that it is $100 per block for the c.b.d.s. i believe that the issue was that there are some c.b.d.s who were included in the garbage rates during the last rate process, but not that there has
been c.b.d.s that were created after the fact that were not included in that process. i believe that soma west is one of them. i don't know the specifics exactly. i've really only been part of the conversation about the path forward. i don't know exactly what they've been charged in the past or what c.b.d.s have been charged and i can certainly do my best to get that information for you and to get back to you. >> supervisor peskin: mr. spitz, i brought this up in front of supervisor mar's committee the thursday before last and that is your answer? >> we have had a conversation -- so director, i and miss dauphin had a conversation with supervisor haney about this and i was not a part of that committee and i did not hear any questions in advance about this. i heard some questions from supervisor haney who reached out to us after that committee meeting, and i understand and we
spoke with him. so i'm sorry that i didn't realize that there were questions that were not answered. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, i want to go to supervisor haney with this fact, but through the president, and to supervisor haney, what is mrt respectfully? >> there's a solution worked out with the c.b.d.s and our recology with support around giving the c.b.d.s a credit for the trash that they pick up, in a way that would cover the costs so they're not charged for it. so that's what we have been working out and i think that jeremy is speaking to the deal still being finalized. but most of the c.b.d. are okay with it. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor
haney, through the president, what the hell you're talking about. >> president yee: excuse me? i'm sorry. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor haney, can you articulate what you're talking about? >> i'm not sure that i can say it any clearer than i just did. the -- >> supervisor peskin: can you articulate what supervisor haney cannot articulate, please? >> i'll give it a shot, supervisor. from my understanding recology is proposing a $100 per block with the partial block and a c.b.d. credit to the c.b.d. the c.b.d. would still receive a paper bill from recology with whatever the amount of that service would be. the amount per block would be deducted from that amount. so let's say they have -- and i'm really bad at math here and i shouldn't say it publicly but we'll go with it. let's say that we have a five-block c.b.d. and they're paid $100 a block by recology --
>> supervisor peskin: not being paid, getting a credit. >> correct. so they would still a bill with the idea that the bill would be net zero. >> supervisor peskin: i'm sorry to interrupt you, through the president, mr. spitz. as the offer of the enabling legislation that created the community benefit districts, the fundamental underpinning of that legislation was that the city would continue to do its base work which means cleaning the streets. so what you're saying is that we're going to offload this to additional taxation in a local district, is that what you're saying? >> i don't believe that i understand your question. we do still complete our work at base rates. but the c.b.d.s also provide
supplemental cleaning. >> supervisor peskin: so you're saying is that you're charging the c.b.d.s for supplemental cleaning, is that correct? >> we are not -- the city did not charge them. recology is charging them. we are working out a compromise with recology to not charge them for trash that is currently -- that is picked up in those right-of-way, to credit them for the amount they would be getting billed. >> president yee: can i ask a question, do you mind supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: you're the president. >> president yee: it doesn't matter. i want to make sure that i don't cut into anybody. but is the idea here that the compromise, or whatever that is being worked out, that you try to have it so that it's cost neutral? in other words, to get billed for something, you are basically, you know, making sure that cost is covered, so it's cost neutral.
you're not really -- it sounds like that's what is happening. >> yeah. >> president yee: okay, i got it. >> supervisor peskin: so, mr. president, we have a representation here from public works. do we have a representation from the garbage company? >> president yee: i don't know. is there anybody from recology? i think that we asked that earlier and there was nobody. >> supervisor peskin: we did ask that earlier and i'm asking it again. >> clerk: that's correct. if there's going to be success on this it would be from the mayor's office obtaining -- i would ask miss kitler that question at this point. >> president yee: miss kitler, you have any idea whether they're going to come on? supervisor walton, while miss kitler gets on, do you have a question? >> supervisor walton: thank you
so much, supe supervisor -- pret yee. can we just move to continue items 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 to next board meeting? and these questions of supervisor peskin can get answered. >> president yee: we can make that motion. >> supervisor walton: making a motion. >> president yee: okay, a second? is there a second to on supervisor walton's motion to continue these items until next week? >> supervisor ronen: ronen, second. >> supervisor peskin: and may i, mr. president, ask why we don't want to hear from recology? >> supervisor walton: this is definitely not about wanting to hear from recology but we don't control the recology staff and i do not know if the clerk is going to or not get them. but i don't think that this may be the appropriate time to hold us all hostage for the questions
that recology should be answering. >> i can forward the invite to recology if it's not too late to do that. >> supervisor peskin: through the president to supervisors walton and -- >> president yee: supervisor -- >> supervisor peskin: we still have roll call for introduction, we still have public comment. >> president yee: hold on, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i respectfully suggest to supervisor walton -- >> president yee: may i respectfully ask you to hold off your respectful suggestion because somebody else was speaking right before you and i want to make sure that person -- i didn't know who it was, get a chance to say something? now who is it? if you still want to talk can you identify yourself? it's really hard for me to monitor and i just hear voices. >> clerk: mr. president, it's the clerk of the board. hi. so we did invite individuals, i don't believe that according to our legislative deputy that someone from recology was
invited. can you just confirm that for me, miss samara? >> yes, that's correct. >> clerk: okay. we left that up to the department who is issuing the contract to invite recology. >> supervisor peskin: through the president, madam clerk, recology would like to get on the phone and you can get recology on the phone to invite to participate. >> president yee: so there's a request and there's a motion on the floor -- there's a motion on the floor -- any discussion on the motion -- supervisor mandelman? did you want to say something about the motion? >> i can speak after we hear from recology. >> supervisor walton: i was trying to recall my motion. >> president yee: you want to recall your motion, okay? and there was a second.
>> supervisor ronen: i will recall my second, ronen. >> president yee: okay. so we will continue the meeting until we get somebody from >> president yee: okay. so we will continue the meeting until we get somebody from recology. right? i believe that we could go back to item number -- >> clerk: 32. >> president yee: i think that maybe dillon is here. i understand that she's had some technical difficulty. >> clerk: that's correct. >> good evening, president yee, and members of the board. and i am here and g.g. whitley, with the department of homelessness and supportive housing is also here. i'm just trying to see if she is able to unmute herself. >> i'm here. >> president yee: supervisor peskin, go ahead. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. so through the president to the
h.s.h. department, did we not already vote on this? >> president yee: no, we didn't vote on it. i remember -- >> supervisor peskin: no, no. >> president yee: i was facilitating it. i thought that we continued this item. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, we voted on this. >> president yee: is that true? >> supervisor peskin: h.s.h., why is this item back before us? >> would you like me to respond through the chair, g.g. whitley, deputy director of homelessness and supportive housing. supervisor peskin, you are seeing this resolution for a second time because the state has agreed to give us additional funding, and we're asking that you approve the request that is required so that we can collect the additional funding from the state of california for the
homekey program at the graf nada. the reason that the state is giving this additional funding is because through the due diligence phase, cost for rehab to the program have increased, increasing what would be, you know, the city's cost exclusively, but the state has agreed to meet us with some cost-sharing and increased allocations by $3 million. with your approval this allows us to collect that additional revenue. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, i concur with that statement in every conceivable way. g.g., can you explain to us what the additional money is for and what was procluded in the original resolution that was being contemplated this evening? >> i will -- i doll my best. the original resolution spoke to a much lower rehab cost.
it will take me a minute to pull up what that original rehab cost was. but that rehab cost has grown significantly. the latest estimates that we have are roughly $29 million just for the rehab. in addition to $46 million for the acquisition costs. so that exceeds what we initially knew when we, you know -- >> supervisor peskin: sorry. >> i'm sorry. >> supervisor peskin: go ahead. >> and $12 million of that $29 million is predominantly for seismic issues that have come up during the due diligence period. and so because of the pace of the homekey program, you know, the city and the co-applicant, pisc,episcopal community servics done a due diligence process.
typically that due diligence would be done prior to acquisition, but because of the urgency of the homekey program and the urgency to spend the federal dollars before the end of the calendar year or lose them, you know, we've had to -- >> supervisor peskin: federal or state dollars? >> it is federal cares act funding, supervisor peskin, that is being direct distributed through the state to the homekey program but it's tied to the cares act and those funds expire at the end of the calendar year if they're not spent. >> supervisor peskin: so, g.g., how many units of that 1,000 -- >> 332 units, sir. >> supervisor peskin: yes. and how many are occupied and how many are vacant about? >> there are approximately 80 occupied units, and any work would not -- is not anticipated to impact those units. to impact those existing tenants
and all tenants will be retained at the site. >> supervisor peskin: g.g., when you say any work, any work relative to seismic means what? >> unfortunately, i'm not a seismic expert, but my understanding from e.c.s. is as follows, that the additional due diligence and structural review and work will be going on through -- and that will take us through the next six months. while we -- while they refine the scope of that work and go through the permitting process. any work that would need to be done on the building would not impact the existing tenants. if for some reason an existing tenant's unit would be impacted, at no cost the e.c.f.3 team would come in and relocate them to another unit temporarily. and so i -- >> supervisor peskin: look, just so we're clear -- this negotiation has been going on for many months and i realize that it is relatively compressed
negotiation in, you know, the government time. but what work needs to be done? and what displacement or relocation would have to happen? and if you're not qualified to answer this, is there anybody here from e.c.s. who can say this on the record? >> i believe that we were trying to get e.c.s. on the call. i will say that according to e.c.s., as of this evening, no tenants would be displaced from this site during any kind of rehab work. but as you said yourself, supervisor peskin, this is a very compressed timeline and the due diligence is ongoing and as we refine the scope of that work, we're getting advice from our partners at m.c.d. and their construction unit they need to review this. you have seismic experts and environmental experts on site reviewing what the scope of work would be -- would need to be done, but i have the co-applicants' commitment that no one will be displaced from the site. at most they may be
inconvenienced and have to change units. this is why we're trying to, you know, rapidly fill the units for folks experiencing homelessness. >> supervisor peskin: so are we talking about moments or shared walls, or we talking about the first story, the second story, the underground? i mean, we're in this pretty deep. as a matter of fact i do believe that e.c.s. own this is this nof 13, november. >> through the chair, that's correct. i will note that these kinds of decisions and additional review will come back to the board as we go into final loan closing and the city puts in its final financing. right now the city is not funding the rehab. we are supporting the project as a co-applicant, but this is really with e.c.s. and, you
know, the decisions about the seismic and what to fund and what not, are -- are going to come after we're able to get the additional $3 million from the state and close the acquisition cost by the end of the year. so there will be another opportunity for the board to review those details. >> supervisor peskin: so, g.g., president yee and i would like the state money and the cares money, but i'm not sure that i want to take the money until you and e.c.s. can articulate what it is that we're taking the money for. just so we're clear, this is not the first time that we had this conversation. i had this conversation off-line with e.c.s. yesterday. so here's my question to deputy
city attorney pearson, which is, if this is continued a week, do i endanger anything, because i'm short for answers. >> i believe that miss whitney is in a better position than i am to answer that question, supervisor peskin, because she's closer to the transaction and the timing of the receipt of funding. >> clerk: through the president may i mention a point of information. the system is having problems muting everyone so just know that we might be hearing you in the background and you might not know it. thanks. >> president yee: so it was a question, g.g., are you still there? >> i am, president yee. yaid di. >> president yee: did you hear the question? terms of timing? >> yes, i did. we are required to close all care act funds by, you know, through the standard agreement that we've already executed which this board allowed us to
approve. so we do have an executed agreement. until the board approves this amount we will not be able to collect the additional $3 million. i do not know if that is their 3 million in care -- $3 million in cares act funding or state general funding. they're both part of that contract. so not approving that in time could endanger the $3 million if it is care acts funds. i can follow-up on that question and get back to you during this meeting. >> president yee: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, look, i do not want to endanger any of these funds, be they state or federal dollars. but we all know that there's no magic timeline between today, 1 december, and the end of this month, 31 december. and we have two more meetings. generally governments get things
on calendar fiscal years. so i would imagine, and miss whitley can contradict me, that we have plenty of time to get good information from our staff. and this is not going to be jeopardized between now and the end of this calendar month. >> respectfully through the chair, supervisor, my partners are telling me that this could jeopardize our funding. h.c.d. is requiring us to meet these very strict deadlines that we communicated to them. and the result would be that the city would be on the hook for all of the money, whatever rehab costs, you know, and we wouldn't have any additional leveraging from the state. so we did make a commitment to h.c.d. that this would be heard on this timeline and we do think that this jeopardizes that money. >> supervisor peskin: g.g., miss whitley, i hold you in profound
esteem and respect. if you make that representation to this body, can you put up now or before the end of this meeting documents that state that what you have just represented is true? >> sir, i will review the standard agreement language and i can also try to contact h.c.d. to confirm that. that is my understanding from our project lead, but i am happy to confirm that. >> supervisor peskin: i mean, i get any number of people over 20 years who say if you don't do this today or tonight, it will come to an end. show me. >> president yee: supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes, thank you. i wanted to mention during budget this is indeed the second one, approval, that we passed through budget with a positive
recommendation to the board as this is just supplementing actually the original act. i just want to advise this board that this project, homekey grant, i think is a very good thing and it takes the hotel granada and gives us over 200 units of affordable housing. this is probably a piece of property that we would have look the at on our own to purchase as it was used as a hotel during shelter in place. i actually think that this last amendment of it is very minimal. i think that if the supervisor would like a full explanation of the entire project and i think that would be actually more informative than just one supplemental for $3 million. but the overall funding for this is being paid through a home key grant, which i think that we're
very competitive to even get. and, actually, the hotel granada i think is a wonderful investment for, you know, unhoused people in san francisco. so i would say that -- so, supervisor, through the president, if this is something that you want more information on, i'm happy -- i think that because this is on a timeline, and they've had to work very quickly on this because this is like free money and a lot of free money, so i'm hoping that we can meet that timeline and also have you satisfied with your questions about maybe perhaps the overall project. that's all i wanted to say. thank you. >> president yee: okay, well, let's -- supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president. i don't want to turn this into a budget committee meeting. and let me say, number one, that i have been in the granada hotel
many, many times over 20 years. and the allegedly 80 some peoply constituents and friends, thank you for hanging on. to my friend, the budget chair, this is actually a very sensitive situation. i have grave misgivings as to how h.s.h. is dealing with this. had i not had those misgivings, i would not put you and my other nine colleagues through what i'm doing tonight where i've had these conversations off-line. but let me be perfectly clear -- it is not clear to me that miss snyder and miss stewart-conn know what they're doing relative
to this facility. if you look at the last resolution, my name is on it. >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> supervisor peskin: but here's the deal, madam chair fewer and president yee, it is unclear to me that miss stewart-conn and miss snyder know what they're doing. what i'm trying to do is to illicit an actual plan from them. which heretofore i have not received. >> president yee: so here's what i'm going to suggest. we're going to go ahead and call the roll on this. >> supervisor peskin: call the roll on what? >> president yee: let me just finish. you know, i'm -- maybe i'm thinking very differently. i heard earlier that the renovation or whatever they're doing is going to cost upwards of trillions, something million, in which i believe that the city
is on the hook for a lot of it. and if we get an additional $3 million, even if we can't find $3 million worth of work, i imagine that we would pay less of the renovation from city funds. so i'm okay with that. in terms of maybe not having the detailed plans today. supervisor mandelman? >> thank you, president yee. i mean, i feel like, you know, i am -- i share the concerns about the potentially losing funding and i do think that housing closing -- sometimes there are deadlines that are real and the money does have to be in. so i don't know exactly, you know, whether -- and programatically if you can lose funding. i think that supervisor peskin has been very close to this project and deeply involved in it from the beginning and is aware of issues related to the needs of the residents and
people coming into the building that others of us are not. i'm not super comfortable saying no to this amendment today, but i'm also not super comfortable voting on it right now so i would actually request that you give them a little more time through this meeting to see if they can figure it out. >> president yee: i understand that maybe e.c.s. -- >> supervisor peskin: e.c.s. >> president yee: you think they could answer the question? >> supervisor peskin: oh, they can. >> clerk: they are on line. >> i believe they are here. >> clerk: kathleen mertz. >> can you hear me? i'm having technical difficulties. hi, kathleen mertz and i'm the director of housing development for the community services. >> president yee: how early did you join us? did you hear some of the line of
questioning -- >> yeah, i did, and i have actually been watching since 2:00. >> president yee: can you answer some of the questions. >> sure. so we do as g.g. talked about, we have been working with very tight due diligence timeline. we have been working with the contractor, and architecture since the very beginning that we started on the due diligence process and do the robust analysis of the existing conditions. that also included electrical engineers and technical engineers and structural initials. and throughout that process, which as i said was about a month and a half, which is much shorter than would be a typical due tildiligence ak sigdz, we cp with a preliminary budget. in terms of the total budget, i have a three-page budget in front of me that has been vetted a couple of times now by the
owner group. but, of course, by the architects and the engineers as well as by the construction staff. our other lenders and construction staff and then a variety of other staff and people that are involved. i can tell you generally from overall that there's some main components of the work that's being done that is related to the structural -- the structural seismic systems which is intended to likely be a combiination of shared walls, dampers, and possibly a frame on the ground floor and then also piper racks. currently because of the truncated due dill jent diligene don't have the final system worked out and permited. that's what we'll do over the next several moments. again, this usually takes a much longer period, but we have this access to some of the original documents and the structural
initials are currently working at modeling at their computer. and comparing it not for the current seismic -- because of course that wouldn't work, it's cost prohibitive, but some intervention to improve the stability of the building. for baseline, you know, the emergency exit, you know, in case of an emergency, just kind of life safety only. this is not a massive, extensive seismic program to even try to get it near to -- (indiscernible) that would be cost prohibitive. additionally the work -- there is some work that is some electrical upgrades that we need to do. there's currently some elevator work that needs to get done. excuse me. as well as some minor exterior repairs and some window repairs,
a bunch of minor stuff. but other large portion of work that will be done is currently there are no individual office and program spaces for not only management but also the support services staff for a building this size. and we believe that we have about 10 different just service coordinators and case managers that would provide services to a building over 230 units. so right now because it is a former hotel, there's just large open rooms that we are looking to sub-divide into additional offices for the staff that would work at the site 24/7 or work at a site on monday-friday as well as we have desk clerks there 24/7 there, so that is a fair amount of work to be included in
the scope. and, of course, all of those offices have mechanical and things like that because it's to build out those spaces. so that's another large portion of what is the work that is to be done. that's just the permits that support the supportive housing program there. and some of that would be on the main floor and some on the bottom floor. so that is the things, but there's other electrical scope of work, there's some (indiscernible) work that we're working on, things like that. but we just have a preliminary to this point. we've had to get over the hump to have a preliminary budget with this scope of work. we should get the e.c.s. board comfortable and the staff -- the city staff comfortable, that we had a plan in place to actually move forward with the acquisition. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president. the individual that said they were sub-dividing the spaces,
could the individual identify what spaces are being sub-divided? >> sure. so there's a combination of on the ground floor, there's two large -- like there's a large dining room that would remain open and a larger reading room in the front that will remain as is. towards the back of the building there's two larger -- i think that there's a library or something that used to be, so that will be -- >> supervisor peskin: so that's where the mailboxes are. >> the mailboxes are currently i believe located in the dining room. but either way, there's another room on the ground floor toward the back on what would be the left side if you're looking at the building. >> supervisor peskin: correct. >> and downstairs there's a lot of open spaces that we're looking at reconfiguring into
offices. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i would like to make a motion to continue this item one week. the fact that i have met with these people and they are only revealing to me and my constituents who are people of very low income, over 80 of them right now with this, i would like to make a motion to continue this one week. this is mildly disturbing that i'm learning about this right now. (please stand by)
apart. okay. so 32 has been continued. i believe there's representatives from recology here to answer some of the questions that supervisor has. i think [inaudible] and john porter are here for recology. if you're still here, supervisor peskin, would you like to ask the questions again? i don't think they were on before. >> supervisor peskin: so mr. president, i don't think that's item 32, i think that's items 34 through -- >> president yee: -8. >> supervisor peskin: right. >> president yee: we're moving on, so go ahead. >> supervisor peskin: so the question was pretty simple. it was laid out previously, which is whether or not -- and this is probably less of a
recology question and more of a public works question. ask whether or not community benefit districts should be paying for trash pick up. that's the issue hearing. and i defer to supervisor haney, who really brought this issue up in committee thursday before last. >> supervisor haney: do you want me to describe it again? >> du . >> supervisor peskin: dude, you're the guy that brought it up. >> supervisor haney: the issue is the c.b.d.s are being charged as though the trash they collect up on their street is through their buildings, we've been working --
established prior to 2017 currently benefit from. as a result, we proposed a credit model to recover the cost of service -- recology service for the c.b.d.s, and we're aware that c.b.d.s have grown in both size and in number since 2017, and so our proposal is to create a service arrangement that would allow for c.b.d.s to get a credit based on their size of their service area. however, any credit or proposed alternative, we would defer to policy makers such as yourselves to approve before implementing. >> president yee: supervisor peculi peskin, anything else? >> supervisor peskin: no, i have no idea what my friend,
no noelle, just said. >> oh, i'm sorry. did you not hear me? >> supervisor peskin: yes, noelle, i heard what you said, that recology was going to issue the c.b.d.s credits. what is not clear to me is why c.b.d.s should be charged for what fundamentally is a city service? >> we cannot determine policy for the city, so if there is another alternative that the
city would like to explore instead of a recology credit, we are happy to propose on that. however, the only reason why we offered a credit is because that's in our protocol to offer from a recology standpoint. >> supervisor peskin: well, the reality is public works, prior to prop b is responsible for cleaning the public rights of way. i don't understand how community benefit districts should be getting a bill, and that's really not a question to you on behalf of recology, that's really a question to public works, so let me go back to my question, mr. president, that somebody from public works, miss dawson, address
this matter. but this should not be paid for by extra taxing agencies. that's not correct. >> president yee: so is -- did we already ask that question? were they on earlier? >> supervisor peskin: i'm sorry. miss dawson was on earlier. >> president yee: did she answer that or not? >> supervisor peskin: not really. >> president yee: you know, i think what you're getting at -- i think i know what you're getting at, you and supervisor haney, fundamentally, it was a mistake that was a bad mistake, that the struck where was formed in the way that it has been, you know, for years now, the benefit districts are charged for things that the
city should have been covering. that's what you're saying, right? >> supervisor peskin: that's what i'm saying. i don't think many of them were charged by recology, and maybe you can tell us what districts have been charged by recology over what period of time? >> that's an excellent question, supervisor peskin, and currently, only soma west is charged by our cost. >> supervisor peskin: so you're saying that soma west is the only district that's currently charged? >> if i may, supervisor, as you know, there are 17 c.b.d.s, 15 of which offer litter collection services. of those 15, eight have centralized service locations
[inaudible] >> supervisor peskin: i would defer to supervisor haney. i would suggest, colleagues, that we continue these items for one week, as well, and if supervisor ronen would like to dissent, that's fine, as well. >> supervisor ronen: i don't appreciate that type of comment, supervisor peskin. that's out of line. >> supervisor haney: and these are the c.b.d. management agreements, correct? >> supervisor peskin: correct. wherein, through the president, we could actually change the management agreements and address these issues. >> supervisor haney: so how could they issue be addressed through this -- through these management agreements? >> supervisor peskin: mr. corgis? >> thank you, supervisors. one way that would be addressed is in the management agreement that calls for establishing a
baseline level of service which oewd and the c.b.d.s have been working with public works over the years. picking up trash, as well as responding to matters within the purview of city departments. a more expansive agreement between recology and the c.b.d.s would be something we can look at. >> supervisor haney: and you're already willing to put these in the management agreement?
>> i think they're already in the management agreement without being added to each specific one. >> supervisor haney: okay. so -- so there is some way, though, to potentially codify or help manage the issues in your view? >> absolutely, through a memorialization through public works and other city departments that have baseline services within the c.b.d. >> supervisor haney: okay. thank you. >> president yee: what would you like to do, supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: well, i think there are other folks who wanted to speak whose district these fall in, and i would want to hear from them. i don't know specifically for each of these c.b.d.s that aren't in my district, whether this is an issue for them, so i think other people have things to say. >> president yee: supervisor fewer, i wasn't sure if you were finished. you were on earlier. >> supervisor fewer: oh, yes, supervisor yee -- president
yee. i just wanted to reiterate what i think maybe i heard wrong, is mr. spitz said there is a baseline level of cleaning that happens, and is it the c.b.d.s -- this is what i always thought they paid for was not -- it was supplemental, it wasn't supplanting and then, the c.b.d.s pay for an additional level. is that correct or am i wrong in thinking that? >> through the president, supervisor fewer, this is jeremy spitz with public works. that is correct, and then, we provided services beyond the city -- provide services beyond
the city baseline. >> supervisor fewer: okay. then, supervisor peskin, you're saying they're charged with cleaning up the streets, and then, would this be above the baseline that public works is cleaning? >> the question is whether the c.b.d.s are getting a creditor whether they're getting no bill whatsoever. i think it's just a matter of -- i think we're proposing to have recology send a bill to memorialize these services, and i think that is our
[inaudible]. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor mandelman, have c.b.d.s been charged or not? >> president yee: supervisor peskin, other people are on the roster. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: well, i'm a little confused. two of these c.b.d.s are in my district. these are agreements between the city and county of san francisco. is the thinking here that in the next -- i guess this could
be for mr. burgess or supervisor peskin, is there some universe where we would have some kind of addendum where the city takes on additional cleaning responsibilities for the c.b.d.? i have -- and maybe i'm being slow, but i'm having trouble how recology's charging of c.b.d.s not including these ones, recology's charging of c.b.d.s can get rectified in an agreement between the city and the c.b.d.? is there any impact to the c.b.d.s other thif we continuea week other than they have to sit around and watch another meeting that they don't want
to. >> the main purpose of these management agreements between the c.b.k.s and the city and county of san francisco is this is the mechanism that allows the c.b.d.s to receive the assessment fund that the city distributes to them in the normal cycle. so these three c.b.d.s they've renewed in the past calendar year, otherwise, they would have sunseted june 30, 2020, without these going through the board process and getting the necessary signatures, these three c.b.d.s would not be able to receive the benefit until the contract is signed.
>> supervisor mandelman: you suggested that there's -- that this is -- that is beneficial to kind of use these agreements to get some kind of concession or clarity from recology and/or public works around trash pick up for the c.b.d.s, but i'm not seeing. >> yeah. if i worded it like that, i apologize. that was not my intention. what i meant to say is inside the management agreement, each one, there is a commitment per the city to establish -- may establish a baseline level of service. it doesn't establish it within the management agreement, so even if even are not hoeld up, the city can still establish what the baseline level of service is. >> supervisor mandelman: but
not assessing these is greater stress that the level of services won't be allotted to the c.b.d.s? not loving that, either. >> president yee: are you done? >> supervisor mandelman: yeah, i'm done. >> president yee: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: yeah. i wanted to get back to which items we were continuing, and things kind of drifted in other directions. items 34 and 35 are different. they're not the management agreements, they are resolutions receiving and approving an annual report. it is unclear to me why we would be continuing those, but it appears that the proposals have been to continue them all at once. i woke speak to -- won't speak
to 35, but i think it would make sense to vote separately on the annual reports, which, just to be clear, are fiscal year 2018-2019 reports that are before us, and picking up on, you know, i do think to supervisor mandelman's point in coming back in a week, i think it is a little painful for some folks to have to sit through six, eight, ten-hour hearings, so unless there's a reason we want to move those, my preference would be to move forward and vote on 34. >> president yee: so are you calling the question to 34? >> supervisor preston: yes, and if supervisor haney would like to, as well, on 35, perhaps we can take them together. >> president yee: supervisor haney, did you want to answer? >> supervisor haney: yes, i would -- taking 34 and 35 together is good.
>> president yee: resolutions are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, remind me, do we have any leftover stuff that we continued? >> clerk: nope, that takes care of all of the items that were on hold. >> president yee: okay. >> clerk: we're back to item 42, i believe. >> president yee: i want to thank all of the people who came to the meeting recently to try to get some answers. let's go to item 42. >> clerk: item 42 is an ordinance that amends the health code to prohibit smoking inside all private dwelling
units in multiunit housing complexes containing three or more units in all common areas, to remove the exception for child care facilities located in private homes, to exempt smoking of medal cannabis for medicinal cannabis patient who possesses a physician's recommendation to smoke medicinal cannabis for medical purposes, require the department of public health to initiate a public information campaign to raise awareness of the smoking prohibition, require d.p.h. to initiate the imposition of administrative penalties by issuance of a notice of violation in lieu of a citation, suspend the provision of the health and safety code which requires owners or managers of multiunit housing complexes to provide certain disclosures regarding whether smoking is authorized in certain units, and affirm the planning department's
determination under ceqa. and this item has had public comment fulfilled in committee, but we will take anything in writing. if you are interested, to submit it to email@example.com. thank you, mr. president. >> president yee: thank you. so colleagues, i'm proud to join supervisors fewer, walton, and safai to protect multiunit complex residents from the effects of secondhand smoke. this is something we started working on about a year ago, before the pandemic, and we had a presentation on the issue of secondhand smoke in january or february. and then, covid hit, and we had
to put it on the back burner for a while there. so my staff, kaitlyn, has been working on it in the last few months. prior to that, it was ivy lee who started the process and worked on it for a few months before she left my office. so i want to thank both of them for really working pretty hard with all different community groups and tenant groups and so forth to draft this. so many decades ago, people did not have the right to breathe clean air anywhere. you know, you walk in restaurants, you go to the bar, you go to any sports event, and not even on public transportation, and people were just smoking on muni. but we've passed laws to protect people from secondhand smoke in these places because the science is clear: secondhand smoke has many negative impacts.
today, we can participate in large crowds without worrying about the effects of secondhand smoke, but it should be noted that every fight to protect our communities have secondhand smoke was, at one time, framed as an overreaching policy that takes away the rights of those who smoke. looking at the laws and the norms around smoking, it has changed, and we can see the pattern clearly. i was alerted and reminded that san francisco has fallen behind many other cities in the bay area in enacting policies from protecting our most vulnerable from secondhand smoke by a mother who reached out and contacted my office for help because her infant had developed a crannic cough from
the effects of secondhand smoke in a neighboring unit. when i looked at the health code, our law currently provides secondhand smoke in other units, but this legislation would amend the ordinance to ban smoking inside complexes of three or more units. it would also allow the department of public health to launch a campaign to raise awareness about the smoking cessation and smoke free experts. i want to thank the experts who have worked with our office to ensure that the policy will be
effective, including researchers at the university of california san francisco, the american heart association, the american lung association, the bay area community resources, americans for smokers' rights, and the american cancer society. yes, this ordinance was not endorsed by the tobacco industry, the vape industry, nor the pop industry. i would like to thank everyone who reached out to my office for these much needed changes. my office has heard from so many community members who has found themselves and their family members suffering from secondhand smoke in their homes but have been able to do anything about it for years. many of them are long-term tenants with chronic health issues. they have attempted to talk to neighbors about the smoke
drifting into their apartments and about their health issues. they've even thought about moving to another unit to escape the smoke but have not been able to afford to do so. so instead, they live with exposures to secondhand smoke every day. the stories are pretty heartbreaking when you actually get to hear them. while all of us understand that secondhand smoke is dangerous, i think it's hard to layout these facts so that we can think about what it means to be exposed to secondhand smoke in your own home every single day. secondhand smoke alone is responsible for more than 41 million thefts a year in the u.s. and causes cancer, lung disease, and harms brain and heart functions. there is no safe level exposure of secondhand smoke. seniors, children, and those
a with compromised immune systems are particularly at risk. secondhand smoke with damage children's developing lungs, cause pneumonia, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome, and can make asthma attacks more frequent and severe. i want to be clear about why cannabis smoke is include index this legislation. in committee, we amended the legislation to exempt patients who smoke medicinal cannabis to treat medical conditions, and while there are great benefits to cannabis, there are still health risks and exposure to secondhand cannabis smoke. secondhand cannabis smoke contains carcinogens, and more than 33 identified toxins that
were identified by research. like secondhand tobacco smoke, secondhand cannabis smoke has compounds that are harmful. home is one of the most commonplaces where we can be exposed to secondhand smoke, and residents of multiunit housing are 3.5 more times likely to be regularly expose the. approximately half of san francisco live in multiunit housing. residents of multiunit housing are more likely to be people of color and are more likely to be low-income. exposure to secondhand smoke in the home is a health justice
issue that amplifies health inequities, but despite that, some have attempted to frame this argument as classless by arguing that people who live in single-family homes would be able to continue to smoke in their homes while everyone living in multiunit housing would be prohibits. this is a classic argument that's been used time and time again to fight policies that seek to protect many from the effects of tobacco smokes. low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately targeted by the tobacco industry and health problems. one should not need to be able to live in a single-family home and afford a single-family home to be able to breathe clean air, so i have to say that we should really reverse this --
ensure that all residents are able to live in safe, smoke free homes. d.p.h. environmental health branch will be tasked for enforcement. the environmental health branch takes an education first approach to all enforcement. an individual would receive a notice of violation only after receiving multiple interventions, cessation supports, and warnings. if the violation can't be addressed, that will be the desired approach. d.p.h. has taken this same approach to enforce the current smoking prohibitions for multiunit housing in common areas, and in ten years, in ten years, that -- that there will be prohibition has been in health code, d.p.h. has been successful in compliance
through education, has never had to issue a notice of violation penalties. everyone should be afforded the right to breathe safely in their home, and i really hope this is something that we can all agree on. and i know that this can be some -- this can be an amendment that will be offered to -- to this, and i believe supervisor mandelman, you're up next. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, president yee, and i want to thank you for all of your work on this legislation. i remember that hearing back at psns. it's been a long journey, including provisions to make sure that violations of the ordinance can't be the basis for an eviction, and including,
in committee, an amendment to exempt out medical cannabis. you've done a lot to address concerns, and i appreciate it. and i want to also appreciate the community that you've worked it, public health advocates to reduce smoking and to really wake people up to the health hazards posed by nicotine and tobacco. i remain concerned that this legislation, although it exempts -- it does now exempt medical cannabis, it does not fully exempt cannabis.
tobacco -- cannabis smokers don't have that alternative, so i think it's fully fulexempt from the legislation. so my staff circulated an amendment which does that. it's pretty simple language. i hope everybody has it, and i would like to move that amendment that has been circulated earlier today. >> president yee: okay. is there a second? >> supervisor haney: second. haney. >> president yee: seconded by supervisor haney, i think. yeah? so any discussion on the
amendment itself? i appreciate your professionalism in offering the amendment, and as much as you know that i've been against that amendment, because -- i'll be voting against it because of my own sort of moral compass on this whole issue. but -- well, you're going to do it any wayed. i want to say to my colleagues, you know, you vote the way you need to vote on this one. i'm just not going to be supporting this particular amendment, and, you know, i understand why you're offering this amendment, but at the same time, it's still what i consider would be smoke might still be harmful for young kids and people that have
respiration issues. so if there's no discussion -- oh, supervisor -- this is only for the amendment. >> supervisor preston: well, supervisor yee -- >> president yee: supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: yeah, thank you, president yee. i do want to address the amendment as well as some related concerns, and will be -- would like to make a motion after some comments that i think would take precedence over before voting on the substantive amendment. so, you know, i want to say that this -- this is a very complex issue. you know, i have some
background. before joining the board, i went many years advocating for tenant protection policies at the local and state level, and this issue of smoking in apartments came up again and again at the state level. i will say in 20 years of my landlord tenant experience, i cannot think of another issue that has so divided folks who really have good intentions on both sides, folks who are trying to protect their own health and public health, and folks who are -- who are addicted to cigarettes or using, you know, within their own homes, and want to make sure they keep their homes. so i think that there are very valid concerns, you know, that are raised. i will say that in the years in which this was proposed at the state level, i can't tell you the number of meetings, hearings, times that got introduced, tabled, amended, and so forth.
it proved difficult if not impossible to find consensus, even among tenant organizations. we had a meeting of 50 different organizations, and believe me, there were really different views on this i want. i want to recognize, president yee, your leadership in tackling this issue in your early outreach to this office and frankly moving this issue and discussion forward in a pretty major way in a very short period of time. that said, you know, we have been -- i have been hearing, since the introduction of this less than a month ago, from a lot of stakeholders, both in support and in opposition, and i've heard a number of concerns that i think have merit and do warrant this being flushed out more in committee.
the first is what supervisor mandelm mandelman as addressed, the prohibition of the cannabis. the second is the definition of the smoking in the ordinance, and what, i think, came out in committee and is clear that the broad definitions that apply under state law apply here so we're not only looking at cotaco smoke generating cigarettes but also at vaping, e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and other products where i think the secondhand smoke issues are different, and i think that needs further refinement. the third is that what has been raised by tenant organization, including opposition from housing rights committee and bishop, i believe, today, and the concern is around the risk that this is selectively used again long-term tenants. and the fact is that most
landlord leases in recent history in san francisco have no smoking clauses, and landlords are fully able to enforce those as kind of a lease. so the main impact as part of the law and the main resistance from tenant organizations is it is the long-term tenants generally who have their leases from before the time in which it became pretty standard to prohibit smoking in leases. those are the folks who will be most directly impacted. and then, also, the concerns that have been raised by a number of tenant advocates on the -- not only the potentially complicated relation between tenants and d.p.h., but the potential penalty and potential impact on low-income renters. and again, i want to stress,
president yee, that your drafting of this making sure that it wasn't used as a vehicle of evictions, i think there's a lot of good in this ordinance, but i still share many of these concerns. i think that i'm not -- i believe very strongly that this is an ordinance that we can rush through. i think we can get it right together. i think we can work together, and i think supervisor mandelman's proposal will move it a step forward, but i think this has been before the board for less than a month. we're all getting a lot of traffic in our inboxes that are think are raising legitimate concerns, and so while i appreciate very much the intent of the ordinance, and i look forward to continuing to work on it with you, i would request that the item be referred back to committee so we can take the
time we need to get all of these details worked out. >> president yee: supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: president yee -- president yee, i want to start by thanking you for all of your work bringing this ordinance forward, and also, supervisor mandelman for engaging thoughtfully on this issue. i agree with supervisor peskin, you know, in his remarks that these are very challenging but also deeply necessary conversations in how we protect the right of all people to breathe clean air. i absolutely agree with this ordinance. i am concerned, however, by the process. i appreciate and am sensitive to your desire, president yee, to vote on this ordinance before your term concludes, but i'm also sensitive to the fact that 30-day holds are required for good reason, to provide adequate time for public notice, robust discussion, and
public input and dialogue. while i support the intention to address the impact of secondhand smoke broadly, i also understand the potential impact on the rights of cannabis users, on tenants, and the confine structure. but i'm not prepared to support an amendment to exempt cannabis entirely from this ordinance, an amendment that we received an hour before the meeting, and that may have serious implications. i agree with supervisor preston, that this warrants fuller discussion on the amendments, an opportunity that the public does not have today. this is not an emergency ordinance. it's not in response to a
sudden and urgent conversation. it's controversial, and it will last long beyond any of our terms in office. so with all due respect to supervis president yee and to supervisor mandelman, i agree with supervisor preston that this should be referred back to committee so that we can have the opportunity for direct and meaningful conversation opportunities. >> president yee: supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: thank you, pre president yee, for your leadership on this. i can imagine that what supervisor preston said about this is a very trfrl issue between tena between -- controversial issue between tenant groups.
in my district, i've heard a lot about secondhand smoke. when i myself have gone to deliver meals, i've gone to hallways that just reek of cigarette smoke, so i actually think we've had multiple spl t complaints about cigarette smoke in my office, and it's not just people with children. it's elderly people, also. i think our time on this time, president yee, your time and my time is short. but i also think if this should pass, i think other supervisors will continue this conversation and maybe call it back for amendments or adjustments to the legislation itself, and there's always that opportunity for them to do so. but i will say that i am supporting today supervisor mandelman's amendment. i think it's an important amendment for a fledgeling
industry for so long, we have said that we wanted to help. i was chairman of the cannabis oversight committee, and i think this is something that i think the committee should weigh-in, also. but i just wanted to say, president yee, thank you for your leadership, and also, supervisor mandelman, for the amendment that i will be supporting today. thank you very much. >> president yee: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes, thank you, president yee, and i also wanted to appreciate you for your leadership on this ordinance and for your dedication to protectioning people's rights to breathe clean air. i think that's -- to protecting people's rights to breathe clean air. part of me wants to rush on this because i can imagine the anxiety of when you get to the last board meeting, and how you
want to rush things through, and i understand that. i was going to come into this board meeting today supporting supervisor mandelman's amendment because i believe that cannabis should be treated differently for all the reasons that he described and believe fully that it should not be include index this ordinance. but i'm -- i continue, as i read it over and think about it, having a lot of remaining questions, and some of my questions don't relate to the ban on cigarette smoke in multilevel apartments because i am in favor of that, but it's related more to timing, and given the fact that we are in the middle of this pandemic that is passed through respiratory droplets, and if people go outside to smoke, that's going to increase the respiratory droplets in the street with people walking by. i think about the fact that the enforcement agency is d.p.h.,
and d.p.h. is completely overwhelmed trying to control this pandemic. i think about the $1,000 fine that i understand is not usually enforced but is exactly the opposite direction that we're trying to move to as a city to try to relieve individuals of fines and fees. so for all those reasons, as much as i am struggling, i am going to support provider preston's motion to send this item back to committee. i am concerned with the number of correspondence that i'm still working may way through responding in our e-mails, but i want you to know that i have so much respect for your work that you've done on this, and i also am committed to seeing through, whether you're here on the board or not, the banning of smoking cigarettes in multiunit apartments.
thank you. >> president yee: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, president yee. today seems to be a day that we have a lot of debate over a lot of different issues, and i think that this is one that, for me, you know, i'm very concerned about people's rights, but i'm also concerned, more importantly and ultimately, at the end of the day, about people's health. and i think that the -- the science, the information, and the data is incontrovertible. i think the people that suffer the most, when you listen to the experts from the american heart association, american lung association, american cancer association, you talk to them, and secondhand smoke, regardless of where it originates from, is particularly impactful, particularly on the lives of
low-income families of color that are living in multiunit properties. i do agree -- so for me, a smoking ban -- as someone who was a former housing authority commissioner, we passed a smoking ban in public housing. i think that it has worked well, and i really want to appreciate the work that you're trying to do, president yee, so i was and am a cosponsor. i think it's an important conversation to have. it doesn't seem as though this item has the requisite number of votes. i don't think messaging is quite right without having a full fledged conversation about the science behind it and
[inaudible] with all sides of the conversation. the people that we've been hearing the most overwhelmingly from are those that are supporters of cannabis, and that's fine. i think they have every right to express that concern. i think if there's concerns about where cannabis should be and allowed to be used, i think that's also a state issue. i think that's something that should be looked at and delved into, but for me, at the end of the day, people's concern is ultimately health and how they are impacted by secondhand smoke. i think your attempt to exempt people with medical cannabis cards was the right way to go. i think we furthered that in conversation in committee, but i don't think making an outright exemption for a particular growing amount of users without looking at the science is the right way to go. thank you. >> president yee: thank you. thank you for your comments. let me -- so what's -- what
we're going to be voting on first is the -- the motion to continue, i believe, and so here's my take on the continuance. supervisor preston offered a continuance -- >> clerk: mr. president, i apologies for the interruption. that is a motion to refer to committee. >> president yee: okay. motion to refer to committee. >> clerk: yes, sir. >> president yee: thank you. and for -- so that we could have continued dialogue between everybody, and -- but you also said that, you know, you've been at this for years and years and years, having dialogue, and if you think that this piece of legislation could be stronger in your -- you can offer amendments. i -- i have the -- i have a feeling you could talk about
this, you know, refer it back to committee and have dialogue on this for another ten years and probably could end up in the same place, and even though it's rushed to some of you, at the same time, it's not -- it shouldn't be surprising that this legislation was going it' surprising that this legislation would be offered. we talked about it at the beginning of the year, and even then, we were talking to tenants rights groups. so it wasn't like we sprung it on you at the last minute. there's a motion to amend out cannabis, and that's going to be a controversial issue.
i knew that was coming into the meeting. i feel like my office worked with the tenant rights group so it was well protected, so i don't feel like anyone can use it. i want to emphasize that we keep getting onto the right of people to smoke, and i'm worrying about those tenants. maybe there should be another tenant advocacy group of people who don't want to smoke or who don't want to be breathing the secondhand smoke. it's one of these where you can't win. you have groups that want to smoke wherever they want, and there's other groups that have issues because of their health conditions, and i keep on saying, why are we weighing that more than just worrying about whether or not one that's been smoking for years can
continue smoking -- offering secondhand smoke to other people? and i say no, we should be. and i think we -- it's got to be at some point where we take a stand and say this is enough. you know, we could keep on talking this to death, and, you know, in emergency roterms of are responding, this is not different from any other hot issue where they have three months or one month or a couple weeks for discussion. like the airbnb stuff, i've been getting thousands of e-mails from those discussions. there's probably other hot issues like that, so i really urge my colleagues, you know, to really consider not sending this back to committee. i think we worked on it pretty -- quite extensively in
terms of the other issues that we could try to address, and -- and i don't know what else you could do to this thing except -- oh, the only other thing i could think of was please don't smoke, but oh, go ahead. i think it's foolish for us to go back from something that maybe's not perfect to nothing protecting from secondhand smoking. this one number that doesn't lie is to implore you. 41,000 people die every year because of secondhand smoke. that's not a lie. i don't want us to become like
donald trump and think that everything is fake news or something, so i really urge you to not continue and just have a vote on the amendment that supervisor mandelman has offered. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president yee. so i think that, just to respond, it is a big difference between this deliberate body having this before us essentially for 28 days and the years that you're describing. i don't think anyone's -- i'm certainly not suggesting that we should engage in a process that should take years, and i think we should to give it a chance. and the one thing i know is that the tenant groups in this
city do represent the folks that you are talking about, the groups that are getting sick. those are members of the tenant groups, as well, and those groups are trying to balance the interest in a way that i think is difficult to do, and i would hope that we get to a place through additional dli deliberation, and i think we're on our way to get there, where the tenants groups are supportive of a piece of legislation like this. i do want to correct the idea that folks are powerless right now. as i said, landlords not only use leases that prohibit smoke is, there's amendments around when conditions are particularly bad in terms of
n nuisance. there's mitigation attempts by either the tenants or the landlord before it ripens to the level of fines and so forth. so i think this legislation takes a big step forward, but i think it could definitely benefit from further discussion in committee. thank you. >> president yee: thank you. okay. anybody else before we vote on the -- not continuance -- to refer it back to committee? okay. madam clerk, roll call. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. a question. supervisor preston made the motion. was there a second on that motion? >> supervisor mar: second. i'll second. mar. >> clerk: okay. >> president yee: supervisor mar will second that. >> clerk: okay. on the motion to refer item 42 to committee -- [roll call]
and stefani in the dissent. >> president yee: okay. there's another motion by supervisor mandelman to basically take cannabis out of this ordinance. >> clerk: okay. >> president yee: any questions? okay. madam clerk, for this motion, roll call, please. >> clerk: okay. on the amendment to item 42, made by supervisor mandelman, seconded by supervisor haney -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are ten ayes and one no, with supervisor preston in the dissent. >> president yee: okay. with a 10-1 vote, then the motion -- the item is passed as amended -- not passed, but in first reading. okay. i want to thank everybody for being patient with this discussion, and, whether liberty is right or wrong, thank you for your discussion on this, and hopefully, if it ends up where there's issues -- i probably should wait until next week -- but if there's issues with this, you can always bring it up next week. okay. madam clerk, let's go to item 43 and 44 together.
>> clerk: items 43 and 44 comprise the mayor's reappointments to the treasure island development authority board of directors. item 43 is a motion to reappoint mark dunlop to the board for a term ending february 26, 2024, and item 44 is a motion approving the appointment of julia prochnik to the board for a term ending february 26, 2021. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, can we take items 43 and 44 separately? >> president yee: sure. call roll on item 43, please. >> clerk: on item 43 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are ten ayes and one no, with supervisor peskin in the dissent. >> president yee: okay. with a 10-1 vote, the motion is approved. let's go to item 45. >> clerk: item 45 is a motion to aappoint barklee unitas, ali sanders, hope williams, and james hancock for indefinite terms, to the tida sidden
advisory board. >> president yee: okay. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on item 45 -- [roll call] . >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. so the motion is approved unanimously. madam clerk, let's call 46 through 50 together. >> clerk: item 46 through 50 comprise five mayoral reappointments to the city hall preservation commission. item 46 repines ellen schumer to for a term ending january
13, 2022. item 47 is a motion approving reappointment of mae woo for a term ending january 13, 2022, item 48 is a motion approving appointment of robert ve red gara for a first term ending january 13, 2024. item 49 is a motion approving repiemt of james repiemt -- reappointment of james haas to a term ending january 13, 2024, and item motion is a motion for reappointment of patrick carney
for a term ending may 13, 2024. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. >> clerk: on items 46 through 50 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, the motions are approved. madam clerk, let's go to items items -- committee reports, item 60 and 61, from the rules committee. >> clerk: item 60 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to motion deniedfy the number and qualifications of members of the african american arts and cultural district community
advisory committee, to extend the sunset date of the committee to january 2023, and to extend to july 2021 the deadlines for the written reports and recommendations from city departments describing the cultural attributes of the district and proposing strategies to acknowledge and preserve the cultural legacy of the district. >> president yee: supervisor walton, did you want to say something? >> supervisor walton: i wanted to comment on item 61. >> clerk: m i'll wait until you call that. >> clerk: mr. clerk, i didn't call 61. i only called item 60. >> president yee: okay. on item 60, roll call, please. >> clerk: okay. on item 60 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. the ordinance is passed on first reading. madam clerk, let's go to 61. >> clerk: okay. i think i understand, mr. president, why i think you thought i called both, because they both came out of the rules committee as a committee report, and i made the announcement that they came to the board together. so item 61 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to establish the african american reparations advisory committee to advise the board of supervisors, the mayor, the human rights commission, and the public regarding the development, adoption, and
implementation of a san francisco reparations plan that determines the scope and eligibility for a citywide reparations program, examines current structural discrimination within san francisco, and appropriates institutional reforms to guard against the need for future redress. >> president yee: supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, president yee, and first, i'd just like to thank supervisors preston, haney, ronen, peskin, fewer, mandelman, mar, yee, and safai for cosponsoring this. i hope the rest of my colleagues will all join in, as well to have unanimous support for the resolution. as you may remember earlier this year, i introduced resolution 376-20, supporting a reparations plan and advisory committee that was unanimously sponsored and passed by this board of supervisors in august. the reparations advisory
committee will have 15 members, with various expertise and experiences working and living in the african american community and will be housed under the human rights commission to research, develop, and present a true reparations plan for san francisco. this is the 100% appropriate time to ensure reparations for black people in san francisco, with the commitment of resources of investment in the black community, with the unanimous passage of a reparations package here in san francisco, with a commitment of all communities to improve outcomes here for black people in san francisco, and with the organized collaboration here between the entire african american community. the dreams of equity can only be realized with a reparations plan that allows for wealth accumulation, generational opportunities, and true community ownership. so i want to thank my colleagues. i want to thank you for the passage of item 60, the african
american cultural advisory district, and for supervisor fewer allowing the introduction of the resolution, and i just want to thank you for all of your work that we've been doing to achieve for the black community in san francisco. >> president yee: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: yes, president yee, i just wanted to make sure that my name was added as a cosponsor. >> supervisor walton: thank you, supervisor stefani. that means we have unanimous support. >> president yee: well, we don't even have to vote. no, just kidding. roll call, please. >> clerk: on item 61 -- [roll call]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. the ordinance is passed on first reading. let's go to roll call for introductions. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman, you're first up to introduce new business. >> supervisor mandelman: submit. >> clerk: okay. thank you. submitting. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, today, i'm joining with mayor breed and supervisor mandelman to expand on legislation introduced land month granting fee waivers to entertainment businesses by introducing substitute legislation broadening the
scope to also include substantial fee relief for small restaurants. this expanded fee waiver will provide additional direct economic relief to nearly 1700 struggling small cafes and restaurants in almost every neighborhood throughout our city, and this includes waiving payroll, tax, and licensing fees, including restaurants and cafes that have already paid. when i first introduced a waiver five months ago, most businesses had not been able to find a sense of relief from bureaucratic hurdles. while mayor breed and treasurer cisneros have deferred most business fee payments to march 2021, we've heard from businesses and advocates that a
deferral is just kicking the can down the road. as a result, and as part of the budget process, the board identified $5 million in a technical adjustment to be able to waive these fees. i look forward to working with mayor breed and you to continue serving small businesses and continuing to invest in the health and vitality of the small businesses in our city. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. mr. president, colleagues, today, i just want to say
annemarie wynn, rest in peace. through my chief, sonny angulo, who met her many years ago, thank you for taking care of her. there's a lot i could say about her after meeting her at the skate club, but tui, rest in peace. to tui's family, i'm so sorry to a woman who passed way too s soon, and the rest i will submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, madam clerk. first, today, supervisors haney, ronen, walton, and i are cosponsoring legislation to stop the closure of our shelter in place hotels, and i want to thank roger haney f-- supervisr
haney for his leadership on this, and i know that he will be addressing this in more detail. we were in disbelief when we learned that the city would be closing shelter in place hotel later this month. we held a hearing at the board which then exposed the need for this program to continue, and we encouraged the transition of residents to permanent housing, but it really became clear that that goal can only be met with more time and planning, and we need to make sure, also, that we're moving more people off the streets and into s.i.p. hotels when we're able to, and then into more permanent housing. the s.i.p. program has been a success, a basic and humane response. thousands of people have had
safe shelter, and lives have been saved. it is the winter. we are in the beginning or the middle of what looks to be a very large surge, and this is the worst possible time to wind down the program, especially since the entire cost of the program is just $3 million a year, when the federal and state reimbursements are factored in. since the time of the hearing, we welcomed the news from the h.s.h. that the closures would be postponed a month. we're looking forward to engaging with the administration to make sure that the hotels remain open and keeps people safe and moves them into permanent housing, and keeping people safe, and that includes procuring as much permanent and temporary housing for people living on our streets. i also wants to join in
supervisor peskin's remarks in his in memoriam for tui, and all of tui's family and friends, and especially to our colleague here in city hall, sonny angulo, who was a friend to tui and introduced me to tui years ago. tui was a really amazing and inspirational person who made our youth and our entire community stronger and happier every day. i'm honored to have had the chance to know her, and also to have the s.f. skate club that supervisor peskin mentioned, in
my district at 635 divisadero. for those of you that aren't familiar with it, please learn about it. it's not just a skate club, it is a community center. tui's work went well beyond teaching youth how to skate. she really created a home for youth in our city, a place to build confidence, to build friendships, and a support system for everyone who came through. so if you have a moment to walk by, i really encourage folks to see the memorial that's been set up for tui on divisadero near grove. hundreds have left messages and photos to honor tui's incredible life, and just sending love and thoughts to sean and all of team tui during
this difficult time. rest in power, tui. unfortunately, i have another in memoriam, and would like to offer an in memoriam for dave greshell. dave was a leader in the community, both at his home and in his neighborhood where his business was located. many know dave as the owner of mom's body shop and a tattoo shop in the haight-ashbury. he was known to those, and tiki dave was a fellow advocate for small business owners and neighbors, serving as the president of the board of directors at cathedral hill tower condominium association, where he resided. he was the merchant association
liaison for the haight-ashbury merchant association. he worked with small business owners, and even continued to advocate while ill. dave was born in 1953, a proud fourth generation san franciscan. he attended washington high school, as his father did before him, and completed his studies at the selwyn school in texas. he was very involved in various communities and proudly filled out his last ballot so that he could contribute to the end of the trump administration. he collected tattoos and works of over 50 different artists on his body. at last count, en masamassed d
of tattoo history. later, bicycles came back into his life. he delved into the influence of marin county on the history of mountain bikes. he had a thirst for knowledge and experiences and travelled the world in style. dave's family describes him as a bad boy looking biker with a marshmallow inside. his favorite movies were legally blonde, and blood in blood out. he was extremely loyal. he could get frustrated and pop a cork, but would then come right back down and own his part. he made many good friends, kept them spinning stories about the adventures they had together. family and friends were really important, paramount to him.
he will be missed, and there will be a memorial. i don't think a date has been announced at this time, and he's survived by his wife, diane olivier, stepchildren, olivia and henry beckwith, predeceased mother, beverly, sister ellen and husband, richard ashmore, and i'd like to thank henry for coordinating with our office to honor dave today. i'd like to extend my deepest condolences to dave's family, friends, and all those who had the pleasure of knowing him, and may dave's memory, life story, and treasured tattoo shop live on. and finally, i understand that supervisor walton will be announced an in ri