tv Full Board of Supervisors SFGTV December 13, 2021 6:00am-9:36am PST
>> president walton: good afternoon and welcome to the december 7, 2021 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madam clerk, would you please call the roll. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. [roll call] >> clerk: mr. president, you have a quorum. >> president walton: thank you so much. and at this time, we would entertain a motion to excuse supervisor melgar as she has a death in the family.
made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor stefani. >> clerk: on the motion to excuse supervisor stefani -- >> supervisor stefani: madam clerk -- >> clerk: i'm sorry. on the motion to excuse supervisor melgar -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are ten ayes. >> president walton: thank you. motion to excuse supervisor melgar from today's meeting is approved.
the san francisco board of supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homelands of the romay turbo loany. the ramaytusholiny have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as caretakers of this place as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the abcestors, elders, and -- ancestors, elders, and members and acknowledging their rights as first peoples. colleagues, please stand with me and recite the pledge of
allegiance. ["pledge of allegiance"] >> president walton: and on behalf of the board, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgovtv. today, we have kalina mendoza who record each of the meetings and make each of the recordings available on-line. and madam clerk, i believe we have mayor breed here, so madam clerk, let's go to item 1 on the agenda. >> clerk: yes. pursuant to charter sections 2.103 and 3.100, and ad stiff code section 2.11, the mayor shall discuss the following eligible topic submitted from the supervisors representing districts 10 and 11. the mayor may address the board
initially for up to five minutes. >> president walton: thank you. i believe i saw the mayor earlier, but i don't see her now. >> the hon. london breed: i'm here. the last few weeks, i've been out in the community going to various tree lightings and events, and it's wonderful to see the city shining so bright. just a little bit ago, i was in the holiday shopping pop up, and i hope you all got to go down there to do some shopping for your friends and family. now i know there's a lot of talk about what's happening here in san francisco. i see it coming from people here in the city and what's happening from people outside the city, and i want people to remember that there are great things happening in san
francisco, people out there every single day to do their parts to make our city shine. yes, we also have our challenges, but we also have a story to tell. we are a beautiful city, and we cannot let ugly incidents erase that. we cannot give into narratives of despair and hopelessness about what's happening in the tenderloins. we cannot let car burglaries or robberies part of the life of living here. we must fight back against all of this, and we will fight back against it, because the tenderloin is a neighborhood of families and immigrants. union square is where people come from all over to shop, where cable cars climb our hills, because our residents, they love this city, and they deserve to feel safe. and in the coming weeks, we're going to make hard and
difficult decisions about how we prioritize doing just that: making people feel safe so that people feel good about this tee, so that they feel proud of san francisco. san francisco has so much to offer, and as leaders, it's really up to us to make the right decisions as we move forward into the new year, and i'm looking forward to working with you to do just that. >> president walton: thank you, mayor breed. madam clerk, would you please call the first topic? >> clerk: yes. the first topic submitted by supervisor of district 10 is dreamkeeper initiative follow up. >> president walton: thank you very much, madam clerk, and thank you very much for being here, madam clerk. as you know, we work closely with your office and with the human rights commission under the leadership of director
david with the dreamkeeper initiative. this once-in-a-lifetime initiative will have an array of opportunities in san francisco, and i want to say that this is an amazing initiative that we all supported. we're now a few months into the initiative, and implementation is taking place, would you please provide an update on the status of where we are with the work on the dream keeper initiative? >> the hon. london breed: well, thank you so much, president
walton. we have already distributed millions of dollars for resources and not just opportunities for the black community in san francisco, but to break the cycle of injustice in our community for decades. over 80 community-based organizations have been selected to launch or support over 130 programs. this is what has just been allocated in the current fiscal year. $11 million for family support. $27 million for economic empowerment. $4.6 million for education enrichment. $2.9 million for mini grants and nonprofits, and $10 million for home ownership programs, but this initiative is about so
much more than these dollar amounts. it's about putting in the work to create new policies and programs that are sustainable and deliver the results that we need and are truly equitable. we know we still have a lot of work to do, but we are seeing this initiative make a real difference for our community. earlier this year, an individual participated in the city e.m.t. training program told our office how much the program helped her get back on her feet, and because it provide more than just career training, the stipend that's provided for the dreamkeeper, helped her pay her rent and even volunteer in her community, and because she did not have to worry or stress about making ends meet, she was able to grad from the program,
and she's working on becoming a full time paramedic with the fire department. just think about this. we are in the midst of a paramedic shortage, and the dreamkeeper is helping us not only lift up members of our community, including public safety need. i have a number of other examples, but i'll turn it back over to you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, madam mayor. i don't have a follow-up question, but at this point, you may ask me or any other supervisor a question related to this topic. >> the hon. london breed: i have a question for you, president walton, and the question for you is what is it that we can do more to ensure that the we sources we have available through the dream keeper initiative is truly reaching the community at its core? >> the hon. london breed: thank
you for that question, mayor breed, and i think the first thing really starts with how we pull together our community with the resources and nonprofits that we provide, and making sure that we continue to hear from them and also making sure that they hear from us about accountability and what needs to happen. but our departments also have to be more nimble at times, and that's why i go back and forth with different city departments because the reality of it is, we have to move fast so we can have these positive implications for our community, and some organizations do a better job to move those resources out the door so the resources that are available do get in the hands of the nonprofits that provide services, but, more
importantly, to answer your question, get in the hands of the people and community that we are trying to serve. >> the hon. london breed: thank you. >> president walton: thank you, madam mayor. and with that, that concludes the district 10 topic discussion. and madam clerk, would you please call the next topic. >> clerk: the next topic was submitted by the supervisor of district 11, supervisor safai, for self-referrals to congregate shelters. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. i appreciate the mayor asking the question. supervisor and president walton was the first supervisor to be asked a question by the mayor. any way, thank you, madam mayor. my question is self-referrals to congregate shelters.
now, access to shelter breeds seems to be limited to a small number of government entities and a more centralized process. meanwhile, community organizations are reporting that our unhoused community members are begging for shelters and our organizations have no way to connect them to beds due to our system being down as a result, our nonprofits have had to turn individuals way, while shelters are reporting they have empty beds just sitting there. while our nonprofits understand there are technical difficulties as our city has migrated away from the hmis system, they do not believe enough is being done to restore
the system. so mayor, will you prioritize restoring the 311 shelter bed entry system that was in place prior to covid, especially as it relates to congregate shelters and winter shelters? >> the hon. london breed: well, thank you, supervisor, for the question. as you know, during the pandemic, we had to make decisions for the health and well-being of all san franciscans, including the [indiscernible] one of the most harrowing moments early on is when we had an outbreak at m.s.c. staff, but thanks to the hard work of city staff and nonprofit providers, we are able to reduce the limit of our shelters and open thousands of
hotel rooms and provide them with rooms for covid. we also have a robust vaccination outreach for homeless residents, which is the most important way to protect against this virus. as we have done throughout this pandemic, we are following the guidance of our public health professionals, and this includes our shelter system. right now, they do not recommend that we restrict access to shelter based on testing. the san francisco department of public health continues to advise that we follow the state department of public health for testing people in shelters. the current placement system allows the city to prioritize the most at risk individuals mon the unhoused population, but part of that system include that people can self-refer to shelter by call the h.o.t. team, and people are doing that every single day, so in terms
of testing, i'm always open to discussion about what is the best for our shelter systems and our residents, and i'm hoping that we can expand capacity safely and soon, but for now, with this new variant, public health is not making that recommendation. i'm open to continuing this with you, but it's important that these recommendations are made with the department of public health so we can ensure that we're continuing to keep people safe again. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam mayor. supervisor safai, you may ask a follow up question directly related to the opening question if you would like. >> supervisor safai: i don't have any. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. mayor breed, you may ask a question to supervisor safai or any other supervisor in attendance pertaining to the same topic but not necessarily related to the previous question. >> the hon. london breed: thank you, mr. president. i have no questions at this time. >> president walton: thank you
so much, madam mayor, and thank you so much for being with us at this time. this concludes our district 11 question period, and this concludes our communication with mayor breed. madam clerk, do we have any other announcements? >> clerk: yes. the most efficient way for the public to provide up to two minutes of public comment is to listen from their touch phone connected to their remote call-in system, where they will be in live synch to provide comments. throughout the meeting, the telephone number is streaming on your screen. it's 415-655-0001, and when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d. 2482-925-9272.
press pound twice, and you will join the meeting as a listener. you will be in listening discussion and your microphone will be muted. when you hear your item of interest, press star, three, and you will hear the prompt your line has been unmuted, and you may begin your comments. another opportunity for public comment is item 35. that is general public comment. there are three areas that you will be permitted to speak to. that's the approval of the minutes as presented for october 26, 2021 and november
2, 2021, as well as the mayoral appearance this afternoon. the letter of the agenda session hosting items that were not heard in committee, items 36 through 41, and other matters that are not on the agenda today but are within the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. all other agenda content will have had the public comment requirement fulfilled. the board will accept any comment on any topic by using the address at the san francisco board of supervisors, 1 carlton b. goodlett place, room 204, san francisco, california, 94102 or by using the e-mail address email@example.com. interpreters will be available
to assist the public beginning with the 3:00 p.m. special order. we will have two interpreters today, for chinese and spanish. and so finally to the public, if you are experiencing any trouble connecting to this meeting remotely, please call. we have a live person standing by in the clerk's office. that's 415-554-5184. that concludes my announcement. >> president walton: thank you. and just a reminder, colleagues, to please mute your microphone if you are not speaking. we'll go to the approval of minutes, and that's approval of the october 26, 2021 and november 2, 2021 meetings. i'll entertain a motion and a
second. made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor chan. >> clerk: on the motion to approve the minutes -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are ten ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, the minutes will be approved as proposed after public comment. madam clerk, let's go to the consent agenda, items 2 through 8. >> clerk: all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent agenda, are considered to be routine by the board of supervisors and will be acted
upon by a single roll call vote of the board. >> president walton: thank you. and i don't see any names on the roster, and i believe we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> clerk: thank you. item 9 is an ordinance appropriating $64.1 million from the fiscal cliff reserve to the mayor's office of housing and community development for the acquisition, creation, and operation of affordable, social housing under the housing stability fund in fiscal year 2021-22. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. would you please call the roll. >> clerk: on the ordinance as presented --
[roll call] >> clerk: there are eight ayes and two noes with supervisors safai and stefani in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you. the ordinance is approved by a vote of 8-2. would you please call item 10. >> clerk: thank you. item 10 is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to suspend the imposition of the cannabis business tax through december 31, 2022. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no names on the roster, would you please call the roll. >> clerk: on item 10 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are ten ayes.
>> president walton: thank you. without objection, this ordinance is finally passed. madam clerk, please call item 11. >> clerk: item 11 is an ordinance to amend the planning code to amendment grandfathered medical cannabis dispensaries that convert to cannabis retail uses from neighborhood notification and review requirements, and to make the appropriate ceqa determinations and make the appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no name on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading. madam clerk, please call item 12. >> clerk: item 12 is an ordinance amending the police code to clarify that the office of economic and workforce development may establish standards governing the certification of cannabis-related preapprenticeship programs. >> president walton: thank you. i do not see anyone else on the roster, so we can take this same house, same call, and without objection, this ordinance is finally passed
unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 13. >> clerk: item 13 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to authorize the sheriff to contract with provide individuals and private entities to provide supplemental law enforcement services. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, president walton. i just wanted to say thank you to everyone for working on this with me. we have been working on this for the past year as the voice of retailers, small businesses, large businesses, commercial establishment and business leaders have sounded the alarm about the rise in retail theft and commercial theft across san francisco. there was for a time debate about the impact it was having
on san francisco. many were arguing that it was a temporary situation in our city and county that was not going to last. some of it was saying that it was due to reduced hours and closing of businesses, but i think on november 19, we all saw loud and clear the most dramatic example of this violent behavior that it's having on our city, the reputation of our city, and frontline workers. so back in september, we reduced the 10-a legislation. it has been going through the meet-and-confer process, and we are here today to say that we are proud today to work with our sheriff and chief of police and businesses and working with all affected parties, we have reached a compromised agreement. you all have the amendments
that i will be introducing into the record today, but essentially, this amendment seeks to allow our sheriffs to be hired by private entities. a lot of what drove this prior conversation was the increase in this brazen theft and retail crime and commercial theft. also, that many of the private entities were having a hard time actually filling the demand. there weren't enough officers that were available for overtime to be hired, even on the dime of the private entity, and so what this does, it expands the available pool to include sheriffs deputies, as well. i want to also thank my cosponsors supervisor mar, supervisor peskin, supervisor mandelman, for their early
support. i know each one of them has also experienced this in their district, and i will say that i've had some really good conversations with president walton. i know he has reservations, but i also want to appreciate the work that he has done with the sheriff's office for implementing the oversight with the inspector general. it gives me confidence that there will be sufficient oversight in this program. the amendments today will make clear that the existing program in our city will be the channel through which this will operate for the first 60 days. the sheriff and the police chief will work together to negotiate a memorandum of understanding which will put the administrative boundaries on this program, how it will be implemented, how arrests will be made, if there's bookings,
if there's transportation. whatever issues they might have, that will be negotiated, and then, that final agreement-administrative decisions will be brought back to the board of supervisors and presents to us in 90 days. i think this is a balanced solution, but i think i've been very clear from the beginning, we have no intention of going back to the days of incarceration. we have no intention of looking at ways to incarcerate ourselves out of this situation, but i think that having presence will provide a deterrent, and ultimately those that are involved in the criminal justice system an alternative for people dealing with drug addiction and getting people the rehabilitative help that is needed, so we're proud of this process.
also want to call out a number of our working group members that we put together. chief of police. we also have the district attorney. district attorney has been heavily involved in these conversations. sheriff miyamoto, the teamsters also involved in this conversation, the hotel council, san francisco travel, chamber of commerce, many of our community benefits districts, fisherman's wharf, as well as the council of district merchants, and also, the naacp was a part of this from the beginning and signed onto this legislation. i think this was a well balanced approach, and again,
this will not be done without the chief and the sheriff working on a memorandum of understanding. mr. president, i want to read into the record a number of amendments that you all have been circulated and moved to adopt these amendments. so in the actual title itself on page 1, we add the words, to retail and commercial establishments on-line 5. on-line 10, we clarify retail establishments means an establishment for the sale of goods typically in small quantities or services directly to the ultimate consumer or end user. we add, on-line 13, the special, and on-line 24 on the same page, the sheriff may provide supplemental law enforcement services under this
chapter 10-a only to additional retail establishments. and in that, that's on section 10-a.2, we add a section b, on page 3. if the sheriff approves the requests for department services, the sheriff shall approve with a written staffing plan the approximate personnel location, the assignments, the detail personnel, and the general information for the people assigned to supervise those personnel. we -- on page 4, we add, on-line 16, chapter 10-a, and then, on page 7, we add a section that talk about --
talks about what i described to you, and i'm going to summarize that. the sheriff, in this initial program for reporting, shall consult with the chief of police or the chief's designee to ensure there's collaboration between the administration in chapter 10-a and 10-b. and the chapter will include prioritizing requests in the service areas with the highest demand in the city. it may include execution of memorandum of understanding, which we talk about below. the sheriff will also consider the recommendations of representatives from the commercial retail establishments in administering the 10-a program, and within 90 days, and this is at the request of one of the colleagues, supervisor melgar, within 90 days, the sheriff or chief of police or designee shall develop a report for the board of supervisors or a presentation of this 10-a program that include the
administrative procedures that include the use of force, field report, arrest, and associated reports. initially, the sheriff will provide only these services for the first 60 days as they've gone through the chief of police and the chief's designee and ensuring that it happens through the police department in its inception, and that is for the first 60 days. secondly, as i described, as set forth, the above would expire, that flow would expire after the effective date of the ordinance, 60 days after the effective date, provided that the chief and the sheriff have negotiated a memorandum of understanding which gives all the operational administrative procedures pertaining to the delivery of supplemental law enforcement services, including
written reports, report review, custodial transportation and investigations or if the m.o.u. is agreed upon at a later date, the limitations set forth in subsection a shall expire then upon the execution of the m.o.u. the sheriff shall transmit a copy to the clerk of the board, and then, this section will be eliminated because the m.o.u. will override the entire 60-day process. again, this was done in deep conversation -- i want to give a real special thank you to our chief of police, bill scott, for his hard work, his team, our sheriff, paul miyamoto, and his team, rocky lucia, as well as h.r. department, carol and art, for helping with the negotiations. there was a lot of cooks in the kitchen, but i want to really appreciate the work that they did, and all of the work of my
cosponsors who gave their input and concern and thought about this issue. this is a at the present time in the right direction, and left lane allow us to have -- this is a step in the right direction, and it will allow us to have continuing conversations. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. are those amendments substantive? >> supervisor safai: no. >> president walton: may i have a motion. motion made by supervisor safai, seconded by supervisor mandelman, for the record. madam clerk -- supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you. colleagues, when this item was first introduced, i assumed this would raise the policy issue of whether we should
allow the police to have the exclusive opportunity to contract with private entities to provide services as -- at occasional events and special events, and i understood that the arguments were -- that there was a case to be made to open that process up and allow sheriffs to fill that role, as well. as i look at how this ordinance has been framed, how it's been covered, i realize that is not at all how this ordinance -- what it appears that this ordinance is intended to do. instead, and i think this is even made clearer by the amendments that supervisor safai has proposed today, this
is intended and offered as private contracts with the sheriff's department and off-duty officers to serve as security in retail establishment. whether we think that is a good idea or a bad idea, it is actually not a purpose allowed by state law, and so i am really troubled and would urge folks to set aside the policy question of whether the state law should be changed or not, whether folks want to have off duty sheriffs or off duty police acting as private security guards and would urge folks to look at government code sections that authorize this and authorize this program. this is not an issue. this is a long-standing question under california law
around to what extent should counties and cities be allowed to take their publicly trained publicly sworn officers and contract with third parties. the state law -- and i do want to state the note that i received and really looked into this deeper when i received the letter from the professor that i think all of you received that raised this question and i think was correct in raising this question. the state law that authorizes an ordinance of this kind or any ordinance of this type existed to, quote, provide supplemental law enforcement services to private individuals or private entities to preserve the peace at special events or occurrences that happen on an occasional basis. now i think we all understand and have seen what that is.
that's funeral processions, that's parades, that's street fairs, that's other occasional events or special events where this sponsoring body wants to hire law enforcement and does so through the existing 10-b program, and if this passes through the new 10-a program, for sheriffs deputies. this statute does not provide for the hiring of off-duty police or sheriff as private security guards, and from the start, this legislation was announced outside of walgreens, has been offered over and over again in countless media articles as a deterrence to retail theft. supervisor safai, in his remarks, has reiterated that, and previously when announcing it, said that retail theft is
exactly why we need more presence and an expansion of the 10-a program, to reduce and deter commercial retail theft. so i think the intent of this ordinance, unless the author wants to clarify it, the intent of this ordinance is to allow private entities, whether it's walgreens or someone else, to contract or have sheriffs serve as security guards. this has been addressed in two court opinions and addressd in the professor's letter. i would direct you to the honorable gary kerr, california superior court, 175 1985. it says, we conclude that local
agencies nor the heads of local law enforcement may contract with provide parties to contract with on going private security services by local peace officers for a fee. so if the intent here is to provide walgreens with our sheriffs deputies and our police officers for a fee, that is absolutely illegal, and i don't understand, especially as amended, if that is not the purpose of this law, i don't understand what the purpose of this law is. so i think, through the president to supervisor safai, i would appreciate some clarification of is the goal of this legislation and the intent of how it would be used to allow private retail owners to contract for provide -- for security services with off-duty sheriffs? is that the purpose of this
legislation, and if not, how -- how is it intended to be used? >> president walton: supervisor preston, why don't you get your questions out, and we'll go to supervisor ronen, who's next, and allow for ahsha -- supervisor safai to respond to whatever questions come up from a few of our statements? >> supervisor preston: sure. i mean, honestly, that's really the heart of the questions i have. i think i may have some additional comments based on what the answer to that comment is, but i think it seems to me to be a further core issue that would cause me to comment until, at least from my perspective, until we have some clarification as to what the ordinance is. >> president walton: okay. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: my question is similar to the comment, so i'm state is -- it
now. there are some benefits to having sheriffs be hired as security guard's under sfpd. then, i found out that there are about 400 criminal cases that have surpassed the constitutional right to a speedy trial in san francisco. over 200 defendants in those cases have been incarcerated over eight months -- between eight months and a year before they set foot in a courtroom, despite the fact that they used their right or took advantage
of their right to a speedy trial. and the reasoning given by the court -- i will say that the chief judge did not show up to the hearing despite being invited, but the main reasoning that both the district attorney and the public defender's office had heard was not having -- or one of the reasons was not having sufficient sheriffs staff to staff the civil court to hear criminal trials. and the impacts of the fact that we are violating defendants' constitutional right to a speedy trial does not just impact defendants. we heard stories, once defendants, after sitting in jail for eight months to a year, have had a trial, that juries deliberated for a few hours before they delivered not
profit -- not guilty verdicts, horrible stories of defendants losing their homes, but there are victims that are looking for closure and defendants. you will hear me talk more about this issue, but in talking to the sheriff, that's what he said there. so i have a copy for the sheriff's office that i'm happy to hear an answer about after supervisor preston gets the answer to his questions. what are the staffing difficulties that you're having right now, in terms of all your staffing needs. if you have a plan to staff the
civil courts in a way that would allow them to hold criminal trials at the civil court house. would you mandate overtime? will it make it harder to mandate overtime if sheriffs are spending their times guarding walgreens? this is a troubling matter for me and has provided me some pause, so if i could get an answer to that question, i would really appreciate it. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. we are trying to get somebody to respond on behalf of the sheriff's department, and hopefully we'll have someone available soon. and i have some questions that i would like to ask you, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: sure.
>> president walton: i definitely understand the reasons behind this initiative, but i don't agree with it. we set up prop d, a sheriff's oversight board. the voters voted for it to be in place. they also voted for the office of the inspector general to be in place to investigate allegations of sheriff's misconduct and address all of the issues that we've had with the sheriff's department in the past, so i definitely don't think we should be making any decisions, policy -- policy decisions about the sheriff's department until the oversight board is actually sworn in, until the inspector general is
hired, because these are shifts and changes that are important that will affect the department and operations, that will affect the department in terms of their capacity and their ability to do a part of their mission, and so i don't think -- not only this policy, but i don't think we should be voting on any policy shifts or changes of the sheriff's department until we honor the will of the voters. secondly, as -- i hope that with all of the heightened media around some of the crimes involved in retail, i hope that we don't forget about george
floyd, about breonna taylor, about oscar grant, and think that the answer to crime is more guns. that's something that we worked hard to change the dynamic on, and it's really not how we change the dynamic of despair, the dynamic of desperation of poor people. we have to do much more to address why people are committing more crimes and crimes of retail in the first place. more opportunities for these people so they can kill their dependency mags. more -- their desperation. it's not just coming down to
them saying, let's get more guns on the street, more law enforcement in certain roles and positions, that, and the fact that we haven't seated the oversight board yet, we don't have an inspector general in place. i just don't feel comfortable with any major policy shifts in the sheriff's department without that oversight in place, and supervisor safai, i know you're going to respond to the comments here. >> supervisor safai: thank you, president walton. i know that it's something that we've thought deeply about, someone committed to solving crime and ensuring that black communities and communities of color are not
disproportionately on the receiving end of those amendments. we've spoke to a lot of people on the frontlines, clerks and hotel clerks, and they are afraid of what's happening, and we need to protect them, as well. this needs to be a balance, and as you know -- you and i were there, together with supervisor haney, we did an announcement for an alternative sentencing program for individuals that have long-standing drug and alcohol addictions to turn their lives around, because we saw 70% of recidivists had a
drug and/or alcohol program, and we're going to ensure that people get the proper rehabilitation. but as many of you saw just a couple of days ago, our important jenna united states noed an $8 million bust of organized retail theft and crime that is happening. a lot of what we see on the ground, and a lot of what we see in the headlines and in the videos, so we -- videos is what's happening down the line. to supervisor preston, i would say if we were talking about a brand-new program, if we were talking about something that had not been a well established practice in our city for a couple of decades, i saw that letter, too. i think that that legal analysis was incorrect. we spent a significant amount of time working with our city attorneys. we followed state law, and it is up to those entities to
ensure that these activities are done at the request of the requester, and it defines their special events and occurrences that happen on an occasional basis. there is no strong definition for occasional, so there definitely will be an understanding of how this will be implemented based on state law, and that was the explanation we had been given. i would say if this were the first attempt to do this in the state of california, they have sheriffs in other jurisdictions in the state of california doing this. if we didn't have decades of practice doing this, we wouldn't be announcing this. it talks about law enforcement providing services as
requested. individuals have to put together a security plan. has to be approved by the sheriff's department -- [indiscernible]. >> supervisor safai: -- and for the police department, same thing. so i feel very confident this has been vetted legally, and in no way, shape, or form, is this about trying to have a private security force there. and in talking to the individuals or the working group, they will tell you that they always prioritize everything. this is only overtime. this is not impacting day services by the sheriff.
this is only overtime, and we put language in here at the request of the human resources department to ensure people aren't putting in for time off or sick time and not getting additional pay. that's why we put in here 90 days later for the sheriff to bring back a security plan so it would not impact the day operations of the department. so that's why we put in the amendment that you see under 10-a.6 on page 7 that talks about within 90 days of the effective date of this chapter, the sheriff, in consultation with the chief of police, will come back and develop a report
to the board of supervisors describing how they will implement and administer this program, and it will include all of the things like delivery of services, field training, use of arrest, reports, and staffing, so we did that to make sure it would not be something that would inhibit their day-to-day operations. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. before i call on you, supervisor preston, supervisor ronen, did you still want to hear from the sheriff? sheriff miyamoto is on. >> supervisor ronen: yes, please. >> president walton: sheriff miyamoto? >> hi. how you doing? >> president walton: thank you for popping on. did you hear the question or did you need it repeated?
>> could i have it repeated, please, so i can focus my response? >> president walton: thank you. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, sheriff miyamoto. i don't want if you -- i don't know if you heard my comment from last week at the committee, that hundreds of defendants are waiting well past their constitutional rights to a speedy trial, well over 200 people, caged in the jail, awaiting trial, many of whom will end up being found innocent, at the end, losing their homes, to victims that are waiting to receive information, closure, witnesses, and evidence that
... help the courts will engage with us to be helped in order to meet the constitutional rights of defendants and related victims of crimes if we want to offer up another building that is under your security and protection that i'm assuming will require additional hiring or mandatory overtime. and how will that be impacted? to hire away our sheriffs that we might need for overtime purposes here in the city and count. >> appreciate that it references two main things. one is about the court and our
ability to support the courts if they were to open or plan or the opening of additional trial courtrooms, which we are prepared to do. absent the fact that we're understaffed currently, it's our obligation when tasked with something to make sure we reallocate resources and do what we do have in terms of filling obligations. as the sheriff and the person who runs our jail facilities, i'm very interested in making sure we reduce the population and not hold people over for administrative reasons or process reasons, so we're part of that constant collaboration on how we can move things forward to keep the count down. in regard to courts themselves, the plan you referenced was from chief mcconnell and that was on our assessment of what it would take to open additional courtrooms. not just the buildings or the
plans, but the security considerations. and part of those security considerations are staffing which we would be obligated to make sure we maintain. this current legislation before you would have no impacts on our current staffing levels because it's voluntary for the deputies to sign up for the overtime on their own time. we are not obligated by this legislation to provide staffing services if those positions go unfilled through the voluntary overtime signup process. so i don't believe that would be related to our ability to staff up the courts. i do appreciate that you've highlighted the fact that ourselves, just as our other brother and sister public safety agencies have staffing shortages that need to be addressed through other means, supporting hiring, recruiting and retention are all things we need to move
forward. we are short staffed now, but it's my responsibility as the sheriff to make sure we meet all of our obligations with whatever we have. and right now, although we're short-staffed, we still have a commitment to public safety and making sure we get the job done what what we have. >> supervisor ronen: can you require your staff to work mandatory overtime? >> we have minimums that we have to maintain through collective bargaining agreements, managing sheriff and supervisor associations and those apply specifically to the jails and the courts in regards to our contractual obligations. we do require people to, what we call, involuntary overtime or being held over which is part and parcel what mandatory overtime would be. we don't have a requirement they
fulfill that by a signup process like other agencies do. we only hold people over if we're not meeting the minimums in those areas. >> supervisor ronen: i would just say your assurance that you're going to be able to adequately provide staffing to civil courts to hold criminal trials, that's fantastic and i -- you know, we're planning up a meeting with you about that. it's very different than what the representative at the hearing told us, so that's a little bit concerning. what's also concerning because you say that you are short-staffed it might require this involuntary overtime you're describing if we're able to meet that -- that sort of duty or i would say, you know, assist the court in upholding people's
rights. and i just -- i worry then that there won't be deputies available because of this program. and i -- that -- that -- you're assuring me that won't be the case, but i don't understand how you're able to make those assurances if you say that you're understaffed. if you could just remark on that. >> certainly, i appreciate the opportunity, supervisor, to make sure we're clear. when we talk about holding people over, that's people that are actually on duty at the work site location that are being held over involuntarily for the mandatory overtime. if an individual is onsite, those are the individuals who get drafted. so mandatory overtime only applies to people who are currently on duty. the way that the legislation is set up, there is a signup
process for the overtime available through contracting with the retailers or commercial and retail establishments. that's for people to do when they're off duty, not when they're on duty. so they would not be affecting our staffing levels that are onsite, on duty at that time, that would not be affecting the pool of people we have available for that on-duty overtime if they're held over. if, for example, somebody is staffed on duty, on site, and they're the next ones up to be held over, but they have off-duty obligations or overtime somewhere else, either at our site or conceptually with 10a, then we just go to the next person on the list to staff the unfilled position. i hope that makes it a little more clear. and also i just wanted to --
[indiscernible] -- hearing -- sorry -- did somebody else? >> supervisor ronen: you went off for a second. if you could repeat the last sentence. >> sure, sorry. i think what i was saying there was that if somebody is available for the overtime, they're held over. if they're not available for whatever reason, if they're doing overtime somewhere else which can include 10a legislation, then we can go to the next person on duty. did i freeze again? >> supervisor ronen: no, you didn't. we heard everything. thank you. so just so i get this crystal clear. so you currently have a plan on what it would take and how you would need to staff up any additional security measures that would have to be in place in order to allow, especially incustody criminal trials to be held becivil courthouse.
so what you're telling me now, you have sufficient staff to implement that plan if required to by the city -- by the board of supervisors, by the mayor? >> well, i'll answer your question in two ways, supervisor. i'll take the opportunity to publicly say that we do need to make sure we're staffed -- fully staffed in order to be able to complete our mission without the additional burdens of having to reallocate resources, but if we are asked to do something, then we'll make it work with what we have, and so, i'm basically saying two things here. one, i'm asking to be supported in hiring, recruiting and retention of people to come up to the level that we are supposed to be staffed, but in the absence of that, we still work with what we have to get the job done. so if we're asked by anybody, whether it's the courts or the board or the city hall or anybody else, department of public health, then we make it
work with what we have. >> supervisor ronen: okay, thank you. thank you, sheriff. >> sure, thank you. >> supervisor ronen: i will just say closing out as a comment. i just -- it's very worrisome to me that our sheriff says the department is understaffed and yet we are -- and we have additional needs as a city, one of those needs being something that i'm planning on bringing before this board shortly to fix. upholding the right to a speedy trial of defendants and bringing peace answers and resolution to victims is a greater priority for me than -- than the needs of commercial establishments. and so i'm very worried about
using the very limited staff that we have, you know, for these purposes when there are these really -- really crucial needs in our city that are not being fulfilled. it remains a huge concern of mine, thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. so, i -- on the question of the intent of this ordinance, i will just say that -- that the authors' response does not give me a lot of clarity on what the purpose of this ordinance is. and i am very troubled by what i think is the difference between what this ordinance says it does in its -- in its legal form and
what it has been promoted as doing. so, we still don't have a clear answer. i mean, this is -- keeps being advanced as a response to retail theft, but there is no clarity on whether this is going to provide these retailers with a sheriff by contract to provide security in stores. so, you know -- and to say that this isn't new, we have two decades of practice, i mean that concerns me. we have three decades of attorney general opinions and state law saying you can't do this. we have -- if the city and county of san francisco -- i find it perhaps more alarming, if the city and county of san francisco through the 10b program has been violating that state law -- and perhaps that's the case, because we've all been getting letters from the various districts and retailers and others saying they keep trying to get more 10b officers, there
aren't enough and they need this 10a sheriff officers -- if they're contracting with the city for private security, not at special events, just on an ongoing basis, that's clearly illegal. but i don't want to speculate. that's beyond the scope of this ordinance. what i do want to say is, look, if this were -- if this were legal, if we as city and county were allowed to let private retailers contract with the city for security in their stores -- if that were the state of the law, then i think we'd be having a robust and interesting discussion, perhaps debate, over whether that's a good thing or not. we would be talking about such things as should it be exclusively policed to for that? should it be privately hired security, armed or unarmed? we would be discussing policy issues like qualified immunity,
which these sheriffs deputies if allowed to serve as private security are protected from liability by qualified immunity where a privately hired private security would not be. that would be a policy discussion we'd be having, whether that's a good thing or not. we would be discussing potential impacts on the performance of deputies and police of moonlighting on these hours and whether that in some ways negatively impacts their performance and use of force and other things on the job. we would be talking about whether it's a good use of our public funds to be training and investing in officers to then have them going out to private entities. so all those would be the discussion and debate we would be having if it were allowed, but i don't think we need to get to any of and what disturbs me here, one could look and say despite the best intentions, the
law won't be used because when the request comes in from walgreen's, we want to have a sheriff for four days a week. and then they're going to come back and say, sorry, we can't do it. what troubles me is the -- i think we really do a disservice to serious issues of public safety when we consider passing a law, promote that law, feed a media frenzy around this as a solution to retail theft, never correct the record, never -- other than a joe text once we all received, never seeing anywhere in the media examination of the fact that this program cannot be used to staff retail establishments with off-duty sheriffs. and the 10b program, if it's
being used for that -- for police, that's a problem. and i guarantee you -- i don't guarantee you, but i suspect that if we do this and if we expand the footprint of law enforcement in this city on a private for-hire ways in violation of -- basis in violation of state law, we run a significant risk as a city for being sued for doing that. so, i won't be supporting this ordinance and thank you for the time. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, president walton. first of all, i wanted to acknowledge all the work that supervisor safai has put into this and the broader issue that this is connected to. i think when this was first proposed and you talked to me about it upon introduction, you know, i thought it was a straightforward and reasonable proposal just to expand the longstanding program, the 10b program that allows off-duty
police officers to provide services, you know, at special events and occurrences to deputy sheriffs. so i would support, even co-sponsored, but then i would very much agree with a lot of the concerns that supervisor preston has been raising about how this has kind of shift the intent from when it was originally introduced, at least in my understanding, it shifted now to focus more on retail -- organized retail theft and supporting -- and particularly the amendments that are being presented today, focusing on retail and commercial establishments. that just seems quite different than the 10b program which is supposed to be focused on special events and occurrences and so, i just wanted to state that. i guess i did want to maybe see if i could get a response from the city attorney on this question about whether this is
really allowed. so this shift in focus from special events and occurrences to supporting commercial retail businesses, is that allowed under the state law? >> president walton: city attorney. >> deputy city attorney, ann pearson. as supervisor preston has shared with this board, the board's authority to enter into these types of contracts for supplemental law, derives from state law and that state law authorizes the board to enter into these contracts with private individuals or private entities to preserve the peace at special events or occurrences that happen on an occasional basis. so the legislation that is before you today was drafted to conform to that law and makes clear that for someone to make a request for these services, they need to be requesting them for a special event or occasional occurrence. so the law doesn't authorize anything more or less than what the state law authorizes.
it was drafted to conform to it exactly. if the law is passed, the sheriff will need to develop administrative guidance and will need to draw some lines and figure out how to determine whether a request is precisely for a special event or occasional occurrence or if it goes beyond that and seeks something not authorized by law. we're certainly going to work with the sheriff to advise on those guidances. >> president walton: thank you. not yet, supervisor safai, i see you on the roster. supervisor mandelman? supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i want to clarify something. one of the reasons why this calls out specifically retail and commercial is because there is a larger application that can happen -- that can happen in the city. and this was an attempt to refine it down to those special events and occurrences in these specific areas. it was part of the negotiating
process. the 10b program is much more broadly applied. it is negotiated in the m.o.u. with the police officers association. the reason why the meet and confer happened is because they demanded that as part of the process along with the managing sheriffs association. and so part of the negotiations between the chief of police and the deputy sheriffs was the intent to refine it and limit the scope just to these two areas. it was not as supervisor preston has said an attempt to create an avenue for private security just for these two areas. it was an attempt as part of the negotiations to refine this down to very specific areas, following state law. and so state law is exactly what we have followed here and as our city attorney said, and as i've said into the record, there will be the administrative procedures will be negotiated, there will
be a memorandum of understanding and that will be brought back to the board of supervisors. also to supervisor ronen's point and question and concern about impacting. i want you to know that the sheriff and also the chief of police have said very clearly from the sheriffs department, they will start off very, very small. there are 800-plus deputy sheriffs. there are over 2000 police officers. i think somewhere between 600 to 800 are made available to the 10b program. only a couple hundred will be available for the sheriffs program. even then you're talking about somewhere between 10 and 25 individuals in the sheriffs department that will be made available for this as this ramps up. as is said here, there is a 90-day period there will be negotiations. 30 days for enactment. 60 days for the m.o.u. they will start off defined and
deliberate. i have all the confidence from the negotiations we've had that this will not impact their day-to-day services and they will not undermine their charge to provide that service. i want to give you that assurance. and to supervisor mar, as one of the original cosponsors, the reason this was refined, as i said, was to reduce the scope to a much more limited area for special events and special occurrences. thank you, mr. chair. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton. i do actually have a question here. i do agree a point that president walton brought up earlier about the fact that, you know, the voters have voted to approve for the city to establish the sheriffs' oversight commission. and that we actually have to go through, you know, a discussion about according to deputy city
attorney pearson that we do have to go through this, you know, administrative procedure and trying to have a better understanding and have this back-and-forth with the m.o.u. we have just appointed the commission, but i don't think we're complete with all the appointments on the commission just yet. so i think the question is, is it possible for us to wait for the commission to meet and establish -- establish and meet and have that body, which is supposed to, with the voters' a, to oversee the department and be a body that also have a say in oversight and conversation about specifically on this program? >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. i will say at this point we have the appointments made with the swearing in has to take place. and we also have to go through
the process of bringing on the inspector general. i don't see anyone else on the roster. i know we have amendment -- amendments on the table that were made by supervisor safai and i believe they were seconded by -- a mandelman. >> president walton: supervisor mandelman. madame clerk, can we take the role on the amendments. >> on the amendments made to item 13. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: no. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: no. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. there are eight ayes and two
nos, with supervisor preston and walton in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. motion carries. madame clerk, please call on the roll on the amended item. >> item 13 as amended, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: no. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. there are 7 ayes with three nos, with supervisors preston, ronen, walton in the dissent. >> president walton: by a vote of 7-3 this ordinance is passed on first reading. madame clerk, would you go to our 2:30 special order? >> clerk: the 2:30 special order
is the commendation of individuals who are meritorious and that the board of supervisors would like to acknowledge their service to the city and county of san francisco. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. and director, i apologize for having you here this long. as you can see we had a lengthy discussion, but thank you for being here. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: president walton, may i offer something we can all agree on, that she is fantastic. it's my honor to honor her as she departs the city office of small business after a truly remarkable career. in 1986 regina drove from tucson, arizona to san francisco with a u-haul of used clothes to
open the buffalo exchange clothing store. in her 13 years there, she helped grow the brand from four to 11 stores and provided jobs for over 400 employees. between her work and the city and county of san francisco, she worked with artists to stabilize their business and worked with cofounder of the nobel peace prize winning organization. she began her career as a legislative aide just two years before the voters established the office of small business. she jumped at the chance to merge her knowledge of government with her passion for small business and in 2008 joined as the policy analyst. in 2009, then mayor newsome appointed regina as director of the office of small business. some highlights include assisting over 45,000 new and
existing businesses in opening and expanding. facilitating more than 725 legislative actions and policy issues heard at the small business commission. working with the entertainment commission to create the limited live performance permit. revamping the mobile food facility program and moving it from the police department to public works. supporting the small business commission and joint planning . launching the award winning san francisco portal, a one-stop resource for small businesses accessed by over 100,000 users each year. the issuing of policy paper that established the framework for then supervisor tang legislation to establish the accessible business entrance program. regina's tenure has been defined
by her commitment that all entrepreneurs receive the same support. when covid-19 hit, regina and her team stepped up to support the small businesses helping over 8400 businesses receive individualized support through the pandemic. the small business commission submitted 45 recommendations for the economic recovery task force, 20 of which were implemented and these recommendations also resulted in prop h, save our small business legislation and the first year free program. it's not enough to say that regina has left her mark on the office of small business, because the office wouldn't be what it is today without her. and neither would our city's small business community. i am sad to see regina go and i'm sure all of us are. but i'm so grateful for all the good that she has done for san francisco's small businesses and i hope, regina, that you enjoy a
well-earned retirement with your wife irene. i'm guessing before i run over there and give it to you, i think my colleagues may want to say a few things. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: regina, i will miss you very, very much. it's been such a pleasure working with you for so many years. i think the most fun project we got to work on together was the legacy business ordinance and implementation bringing to life something that's never been done before anywhere. and figuring out how we could really have an impact to help our oldest and most iconic small businesses in the city survive. it was just such a wonderful process. and i have no doubt that legislation and the way that it's been -- it's grown and implemented bears your mark on
it for the rest of its history and i just want to express my gratitude for that. and for all the advocacy and education of the industry that provides the most jobs in the city which is often not really talked about. you've just been such a strong advocate and i will miss you very much, but congratulations. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president walton. regina, i'm going to miss you so much. walking these halls as legislative aides together way back when. i have such memories of our bosses back then and all our conversations. you've always been so supportive of me personally and been there for me every time. i just wish you the best. i can't believe retirement? lucky you. and i'm just going to -- you're just one of those public
servants who shines. and cares deeply about their colleagues and people of san francisco that i'm truly going to miss seeing you around and i hope that we keep in touch. so, good luck with everything. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton. regina, i just want to thank you. also we were legislative aides together. it was great and when you first took to be the director for the small business office i knew that, you know, it was the right move because you really took the opportunity and brought us to a whole new level, protecting small business in san francisco. so grateful to your public service. always looking out for the community, even when we took office, you help us and got us through the whole entire establishing the neighborhood anchoring business and kind of just walk us through step-by-step. really appreciate you, especially during this pandemic.
i think it's too early for you to retire, but we're grateful and be well and take care. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. president. thank you, supervisor mandelman, for doing this. regina, we go back probably at least 15 years when you were in supervisor's office. it's been tremendous to work with you both when you were a legislative aide and in your capacity here in the office of small business. you've been a fierce champion. you always keep your cool. you're always able to, you know -- i've never had a time i wasn't able to get you on the phone, no matter when i texted or called but something to strategize with you and appreciate your heart and the way you give. and we're going to miss you. so thank you for everything. and i know you're going to go on to do wonderful things. you're career is still full and you have so much of your career
ahead of you, but we're going to miss you here in the city. thank you very much for everything you've done. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton and thank you, supervisor mandelman for leading this and i just wanted to associate myself with remarks of all my colleagues and thank you for all your service to small businesses for working with our office and with all my colleagues, but also just wanted to thank you for your years of service in the district 5 office before you starting wearing the hat you've been wearing the last 15 years. appreciate all your service to district 5. thank you. >> president walton: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. i just wanted to also thank you for your many years of service. i know in particular i got to work closely with you over the last year and a half which was some of the most challenging times for our small businesses and the way you really stepped up for them and made sure
particularly for the most vulnerable businesses they had support. i think it was one of the more impressive feats of the way that with limited resources we helped thousands and thousands of small businesses. and your leadership was a huge part of that, so very, very, very well-deserved time to take a step and do something else, because you did accomplish so many things for folks over this last year and a half in particular. so thank you for your service and it was great to work with you and i'm sure we will continue to see you around. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. and i do just want to take the time to say that, you know, you're one of the most thoughtful and solution-focused leaders that i know. and the district 10 office will definitely miss working with you. i do want to thank supervisor mandelman for taking the lead in honoring you today, because you definitely deserve it and i do wish you the best in your future
endeavors. and seeing no one else on the roster, director hinze, you have the floor? >> well, thank you, supervisors, and thank you supervisor mandelman for taking the lead in recognizing me and sort of highlighting a career that has so much to it, but to pull out. and, supervisors, i mean, with so many of you i have a long history with and there is a lot of work that we have done and accomplished together. and that has been a pleasure and, of course, you know, we can't do our work without, you know, working together. so, it's been just an honor to have done this job. as supervisor mandelman said, you know, i moved here with a company as a small business and
then to really have that opportunity to take that experience and apply it to local government, to the betterment of improving the environment, or, you know, working with the environment of our small businesses, so it's just -- it's been an honor and a pleasure to work with each and every one of you. and to really also see and experience your passions for your small businesses in your district and the city as a whole. so -- and i also want to acknowledge and appreciate the mayors that i've served under which was initially mayor newsome, mayor ed lee, and now mayor london breed. and i want to take the opportunity to thank my current and past staff. without them, the office of
small business would not be what it is. mark yawn who has worked with the office and the small business commission and has been working with our small businesses now for nearly 20 years. carol chan, rea, richard, carrie, jane, walter, and dominica. their passion -- they've served san francisco small businesses passionately. and i'm really proud of what they've all accomplished in their commitment in helping our small businesses through the pandemic. i've also had the pleasure of working with 21 small business commissioners over my tenure and, of course, i'm extremely grateful to the current commission for their stewardship and guidance and support for our small businesses in the last 20 months of this pandemic.
in 2007 when our now city attorney david chiu served as a small business commissioner, the commission saw a need for establishing the office. and that our small businesses needed a place to go to demystify and explain the licensing and permitting regulations to open and conduct a business. there are very few cities in this country that have such an office. the result of establishing the office of small business along with the small business commission, substantive changes to improve the licensing and permitting process have taken place. gone are the days where restaurants -- where restaurants were zoned based upon whether they served food on paper plates and used disposable utensils. and gone are thedies -- days that cities were not permitted
to take credit cards for licensing and permitting fees. i'm proud i was able to take my experience working as a -- in small business and apply it to this position. and i'm most proud of the quality of service that each business received no matter the individual or individuals or business idea. supervisors, mayor, mayor breed and you, have made significant improvements to the process in opening a small business with prop h and save our small businesses and the first-year-free program. this is quite a different environment that small businesses recovering from this pandemic are opening a business in than the last economic crisis of 2009 and 2010. my parting advice to you is to make sure you take the time to
see the results. let it marinate, let businesses have time to marinate their ideas and recognize that not everything is under the city's control. there are rents, ease of access to capital, and consumer confidence at this time. businesses need to have confidence that there will be enough custom -- enough of a customer base to support their business. with the ups and downs of this pandemic, businesses may have to wait a little longer to open their business. just know that you've done a really terrific job in improving the environment for our small businesses. again, thank you, supervisors, for this honor. and i promise you, i will not be a nudgy constituent after i leave. so thank you. [applause] >> president walton: let's get a
>> president walton: all right. thank you so much. and that concludes our 2:30 p.m. special order. madame clerk, let's go to our 3:00 p.m. special order, items 25 through 28. >> special order at 3:00 p.m. contains the items 25 through 28, these are persons interested in the approval of conditional use operation at 3832 18th street dated october 14, 2021 to allow demolition of a single-family residence and approval of a state density bonus project. item 26 through 28 are the associated motions. item 26 approves the planning commission's decision to approve
the conditional use. item 27 cancel conditionally disapproves that decision and 28 is the motion that requires the preparation of findings. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, president walton. i hate to deprive this body the right to hear another land use matter, however, my office has been in communication with the parties of the deal and we are hopeful we can work something out among the parties and they have agreed to postpone the hearing until after the holidays to provide time for more of those conversations. so, accordingly, i'd like this make a motion to -- like to make a motion to continue this to our january 11, 2022 meeting and would ask for a second and your support. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor mandelman. seconded by supervisor stefani. madame clerk on the motion. >> president walton: my apologies. before we take the vote on the motion, we do need to hear
public comment on the continuance of the appeal. >> clerk: at this time the board will hear public testimony specific to the continuance as stated by the president. the continuance of the appeal of conditional use authorization for the 18th street project, the telephone number is streaming on your screen, 1-415-655-0001. and when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d., 2482 925 9272 # #. you'll have joined the meeting. you will hear the discussion, but you'll be muted in the listening queue. to be added to the speakers' queue to provide comments, press star 3. when it is your turn, the system will send you a prompt that you have been unmuted. we have two interpreters with us today from the office of civic engagement. i'll ask agnes an arturo to introduce themselves and the service they're here to provide. welcome.
[speaking spanish] thank you. >> clerk: thank you, both, for being with us this afternoon. to operations, we're setting the timer for two minutes. we're taking testimony on the continuance of items 25 through 28. operations, let's hear the first caller, please. >> hi, my name is tray. i'm responding to a notice of public hearing. i want to let you know i'm in support of the multi-family project on 18th street. it's half a block from dedicated light rail, the j church line and the 33 bus stop that goes to the mission and haight ashbury.
this is desperately needed in the neighborhood and i support all waivers to ensure all units are realized. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. do we have another caller in the queue. this is specific to the continuance of items 25 through 28. >> madame clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no other speakers, public comment on the continuance is now closed. on the motion to continue this appeal to january 11th, 2022 meeting, would you please call the roll? >> clerk: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye.
>> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, motion approved unanimously. please call item 14. >> clerk: item 14 is an ordinance to appropriate approximately 31.6 million from the issuance of the special tax bond in area number 2 of the community facilities district number 2016-1 to fund certain public facilities and infrastructure for the treasure island development project in fiscal year 2021-2022 and to place such amounts on controller's reserve. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk, please call item
15. >> ordinance to amend the park code to reduce or eliminate fees for admission to and use of certain facilities on park property for veterans and active members of the united states armed forces. >> president walton: thank you so much. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, president walton. colleagues, i have a set of amendments i'm introducing on this item today, but i would like to just take this opportunity to speak the item more broadly. this ordinance is a small gesture of thanks to the veterans and active members of the united states armed forces in our city and beyond who have sacrificed to serve our country through their military service. the ordinance eliminates or reduces fees for admission to popular rec and park facilities. this will support veterans to maintain their mental and physical health which is a high-priority need, especially for veterans dealing with ptsd and other disabilities and impacts from service to our country.
i want to thank all of my co-sponsors. i also especially want to acknowledge and thank the leaders from the veterans affairs commission. and also especially chan, for first proposing this. and thank you to director ginsburg and the rec and park for working with us and veteran leaders on the legislation. and i have presented some amendments to you. you should all have received it this morning. that i worked with rec and park on. and the set of amendments will initially limit the fee waivers and discounts to vets who are s.f. residents upon the effective date.
the amendments also expand the discounts to all vets upon certification of adequate funds by the controller. colleagues, i thank you for your support and ask for your support on this today. i would like to move that we accept the amendments. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. do we have a second? seconded by supervisor ronen. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president walton. i want to thank supervisor mar for this extremely important legislation and i know how deeply you care about veterans. so thank you so much for this. i think that discount for veterans is an excellent idea and i was proud to co-sponsor and i think we should even look to expanding to other areas in the city as well, because our veterans deserve that and more. i do support the amendments and agree that the board of supervisors should fund this program if it is our desire to
make it permanent, and at the moment we don't know a lot about what the full cost of the program could be, but we know that the b.l.a. estimated it could be as high as $750,000, which still worth every penny for the veterans. i wanted to make sure that the department doesn't have to choose between supporting veterans and supporting other groups of park users or programs in the future. why i'm saying that is because if we're going to invest in our veterans, it has to be something that we are doing in addition to what we're already doing. we're not going to say to our veterans we're going to take away from others and give to you. you deserve everything and more. for me, it's about really supporting in our veterans and investing in way that is long-term. i believe the program is worth the cost considering all our veterans have done and continue to do. i do believe we should fund the program for future years beginning in the next budget cycle and make the department
whole. so, again, happy to co-sponsor. thank you so much, supervisor mar, for your legislation. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor stefani. i don't see anyone else on the roster. and on the motion? i believe we can take this same house, same call. without objection, the motion to amend carries unanimously. and we will take this item same house, same call. without objection, this amended ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 16. >> item 16 is ordinance to waive public works code section 724.1b required temporary street space occupancy permit fees on city streets to promote sidewalk sale of merchandise during the holiday season from chynna deese
4, 5, 11 and 12. >> president walton: thank you. we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 17. >> item 17 is resolution to approve the second modification for a lease between the united states of america and the city to extend the term by three years for a new term ending january 3, 2025 and to increase the annual rent to approximately 670,000 totalling $1.9 million for the extension term for offices occupied by the federal bureau of investigation at the international terminal. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted
unanimously. madame clerk, would you please call item 18. >> item 18 is resolution to authorize the department of technology to enter into an agreement with at&t corporation to purchase wired voice and data network and telecommunications services with a not to exceed amount of $80 million for a six and one half year term of january 1, 2020 through june 30, 2028 with one five-year option to extend. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 19. >> item 19 resolution to retroactive authorize public works to accept and expend $1.9 million from frundz from the 2019 active transportation program to fund the construction of the public works' alemany
interchange phase 2 project for the project period through june 2026. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, president walton. colleagues, i'm so happy to see this moving forward today after such a long time. i want to give you a brief background on what this funding is being used for. the alemany interchange, or the 101 and 280 onramp spiral around and cross over the intersections are most often and accurately referred to as the hair ball. for more than 50 years, the intersection has been essentially a freeway on ramp, a deep scar between the portola and bernal neighborhoods. it's terrifying to see people returning home from the alemany farmers market dashing between
speeding cars to reach san bernal avenue. the transportation authority completed a study outlining safety and accessibility recommendations. the hair ball improvement project recommended continuous accessible and safe series of bicycle and pedestrian pathways across the hair ball, including widening and constructing new sidewalks and bicycle lanes. the project also includes striping improvements, infrastructure upgrades to key crossings and upgraded lighting. the hair ball improvements have been moving forward in two phases. in february of this year, we celebrated the completion of phase 1. reconnecting the portal and bernal with a safe connective bikeway. phase 2 which is funded by the grant, will install a safe and multiuse path across alemany to the farmers market with a much needed traffic signal for a controlled and safe crossing. we expect that to be open for use in fall 2022.
i honestly cannot believe how long this has taken to get done, but i am so happy it's finally getting done. many thanks to those who have championed this project, including portal and neighborhood association and especially former president chris woz ling, who chaired the bike coalition. and thanks to san francisco transportation authority, the m.t.a., and public works for their ongoing hard work and attention to the project. and caltrain for the funding. i started this project when i was a legislative aide. thank you, amy, for continuing the behind-the-scenes hard work on this. this funding marks a major step forward, but there is need for approaches to traffic safety. i'm committed to continue to look for ways to consider more expansive improvements to this
area in my district. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. as you know, this is also very important to my district as we deal with similar issues across boundaries. so thank you so much for introducing this. seeing no -- madame clerk, please call the roll. >> on item 19 -- >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: absent. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item
20. >> item 20 resolution to authorize support of san francisco to -- port of san francisco to accept and expend a grant in the department of fish and wildlife to fund the heron's head park shoreline resilience project from january 1, 2022 through december 31, 2024. thank you, seeing no one on the roster, thank you, supervisor safai making it in time so i can say, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call items 21 and 22 together? items 21 and 22 together comprise two resolutions thatry prove airport lease modifications between the city and united airlines. item 21 approves the third modification to a ground lease, 00-0464 and item 22 approves modification number 1 to a
ground lease number 96-0268. and these items are extended by three years provide for rent adjustments and upgrade certain legal provisions required by state and local laws and this item will take effect after the board of supervisors approves both items. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you. colleagues, i am ready to support these two items today, but i just wanted to flag the fact that i think i do look forward to seeing what the airport to come back to us, perhaps before the lease is up in three years and be able to better understand the strategy that our airport has, not just in relations to united airlines, but also just overall land management s.f.o. and to really appraise the stts status of our
land and the value of the land before the three years is up. i just wanted to flag that. this is my intent and to continue to keep close track of the status of s.f.o. and what we're doing with these types of ground leases. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. seeing no one else on the roster, we can take these two items same house, same call. without objection, these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madame clerk, would you please call item 23? >> item 23 is resolution to approve an agreement between harvey m. rose association l.l.c. and the board of supervisors for the budget and legislative analyst services for a total amount not to exceed $10.5 million for an initial term of four years from january 1, 2022 through december 31, 2025. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk.
seeing no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 24. item 24 is ordinance to direct the mayor's office of housing and community development to conduct a disparate impact analysis of granting a priority for veterans who qualify for an affordable housing preference under administrative code chapter 47. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk, would you please call item number 29. >> yes, item 29 through 31 were considered by the government audit and overtight committee at a regular meeting on thursday, december 2, 2021 and items 29 and 30 were recommended as committee reports. item 29 is an ordinance to
authorize settlement of the lawsuit filed by judy o'neill against the city. this is officer involved shooting that resulted in the death of keita o'neill. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. colleagues, this settlement is related to the killing of keita o'neill in 2017. he was unarmed when he was shot by the officer with no warning through the windshield of his police car. for the past four years, keita's mother judy o'neill fought for legal accountability for the death of her son. the district attorney filed charges against the officer. the first time a san francisco police officer has faced criminal charges for a shooting on the job.
now the city is proposing a settlement of $2.5 million to go to ms. o'neill in connection with her civil lawsuit before us for approval. obviously, no amount of money can bring back her son, but i hope that it can bring the family comfort during these times. they sent the item to the committee to make sure that ms. o'neill can access the settlement as soon as possible. so i urge your support. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor preston. seeing no one else on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 30. >> item 30 is ordinance to adopt and implement the first amendment to the 2019-2022
memorandum of understanding between the city and the international union of operating engineers stationery engineers, local 39, to revise san francisco public utilities commission's wastewater enterprise rules regarding work schedules and shift assignments. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk, please call item number 32 as item 31 was not sent as a committee report. >> thank you. item 32 was considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on monday, december 6, 2021 and was recommended as amended with the same title as the committee report. item 32 is an ordinance to amend the planning code to revise massage establishment zoning controls. >> president walton: thank you,
madame clerk. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. the legislation before us today will make it easier for local massage and small business owners to open and operate massage establishments in san francisco by amending the planning code to permit massage businesses where other health services are currently allowed to operate. right now massage establishments face restrictive zoning controls that make it virtually impossible for these community-serving businesses to open and survive in san francisco. the reason behind these constraints is largely based on the outdated stigma about the massage industry that associates legitimate small businesses with human trafficking activities. these overly broad restrictions drive up competition for the few spaces where massage is permitted. compared with other health services such as acupuncture, and chiropractic care, massage
owners face obstacles that have many choosing work outside of the city. massage was hit by the pandemic and businesses and individual practitioners are now struggling to reestablish themselves. these regulatory changes in this legislation serve lawful massage business owners by retaining the integrity of controls put in place to prevent human trafficking. the legislation amends the san francisco planning code to allow massage businesses that satisfy other permitting and public health requirements to open in any commercial zoning district where health services are permitted to operate. under this legislation, sole -- while health services are allowed. general massage establishments, that is businesses that employ multiple employees, partners or associates, would be allowed in any zoning districts where
health services can operate, but would not be allowed to operate above the second floor of the building unless the building is a nonresidential hotel. importantly, this legislation also proposes a new regulation. three years at any location where massage establishment was closed due to a violation of the planning or health code. this would strengthen the ability to more precisely target bad-actor establishments that are shut down but attempt to open with different branding. last week, the land use committee adopted the amendments suggested by the planning commission to allow massages as accessory to personal services and that change is included in the legislation today. yesterday land use duplicated the file and adopted additional
amendment to add accessory to health services as exception to massage just as accessory to personal services as included in the original file. that triggered rereferral to the planning commission and will hopefully return to land use several months into the year. i'm asking to approve the original amended legislation and make these important changes without delay. this is another piece of legislation that has taken a ridiculously long time to pass. and i want to start out by thanking my former legislative aide for his longtime work on this and to amy for taking over the work when he transitioned out of the office. i want to thank the cosponsors, as well as the director of small business, the planning department and d.p.h., the city
attorney's office and lastly i'm grateful to the san francisco massage council for their advocacy and partnership in making sure that san francisco remains a welcoming environment for massage and health services. thank you so much. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor ronen. with no one else on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk, would you call item 33? >> item 33 was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on monday, december 6, 2021. this item was forwarded as a committee report. item 33 is an ordinance to amend the campaign and governmental conduct code to expand the definition of interested party to include city contractors, persons seeking to influence
city officers and employees, permit consultants and to prohibit elected officials from soliciting behested payments from interested parties. >> supervisor haney: thank you, president walton. this legislation is a long time coming to this board of supervisors. we introduced it, i think, about a year ago. and after many, not only meet confers and six or seven visits to the rules committee, i'm proud to have the legislation here. i do want to thank the cosponsors, supervisors peskin, chan and walton and thank chair peskin for his leadership. he really was a key partner and him and his staff bringing
forward many amendments including one that is in front of us here to improve and strengthen and refine this legislation, so i really want to thank you, chair peskin, and supervisors chan and mandelman, who also heard this a number of times and gave a lot of feedback to help improve it. as you all know, there are currently no conflict of interest rules that prohibit city officials and employees from soliciting behested payments from interested parties. this absence of a conflict of interest rule for behested payments creates serious ethical issues in our city that especially over the last few years has had serious allegations of corruption and pay-to-play contracting. this legislation is an important step to make sure that we protect public dollars and restore public trust and ensure that every decision that is made with regards to contracting or
land use is made with the public interest at the forefront. and the issue of behested payments was actually a specific recommendation of the controller's report related to public integrity and was, as i mentioned, a part of the corruption allegations that came out of the nuru scandal. the controller very explicitly called on us to adopt a similar regulation as the one that is in front of us today in this legislation. as i mentioned, over the past year, my office, first courtney mcdonald and then monica barnett in my office with the san francisco ethics commission and the city attorney's office worked together for the -- to develop these proposals to effectively prevent pay-to-play contracting, while also preserving key fundraising activities that rely on philanthropy.
and chair peskin and his staff included amendments that would further narrow the interests of parties and strengthen the proposed ordinance to prohibit officials and designated employees from asking interested parties to make behested payments. essentially what we saw in the nuru scandal is situations where interested parties who contract with the city were being asked or even forced to give direct donations to preferred organizations or causes of those department officials. this -- in those cases, it led to direct pay-to-play contracting, but in a broader sense this leaves the potential for a coziness that creates a culture of corruption that can lead to decisions being made on a more regular basis that do not benefit the public interest. so i hope, colleagues, you will support this legislation.
it has been through many iterations and amendments and i do believe that the legislation that is in front of us is one that will help us improve and rebuild public trust and confidence and undo a culture of corruption that led to the sort of situations that we saw around mr. nuru and many others who he was associated with. so, with that, again, thank you, chair peskin. i know he has some amendments that further refine this legislation. and i'm also thankful to the mayor and her staff for their feedback and the various departments that weighed in on how we could protect some of the fundraising that they need to continue to do while also having a strong accountability and transparency around protecting against situations that could
lead to unethical behavior. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i want to thank supervisor haney for initiating this legislation and hearing what the controller recommended early on in the wake of the revelations from the mohammed nuru scandal. colleagues, i want to thank you for your engagement over the past several days as well as those who were engaged as this piece of legislation got refined in committee and, supervisor haney is right, there were actually six committee meetings on this item and i do want to thank the other members of the rules committee, supervisors chan and mandelman for their patience and indulgence for what really is a complex piece of legislation, but it's rooted in a simple premise which supervisor haney just articulated. that is that we should not be putting ourselves or other city
officials in the tenuous position of raising money from parties that are seeking financial benefits from this. this quid pro quo behavior has been the subject of frankly embarrassing, shameful behavior in a chapter of our city's history and has persisted for too long. the legislation before us seeks to put an end to that and it seeks to be clear how we're going to comply with it. i think it's as has been refined, gotten a lot more clearer about our obligations and duties as well as those of outside stakeholders and, of course, the ethics commission will continue to promle gate regulations. i want to thank folks who have commented and made provisions along the way, the human services network, for their help and thought partnership as we made exemptions for uncompensated board members and
a host of other clarifying amendments. in response to comments from colleagues, we have exempted parties who are engaged in the time-honored practice of granting funds to the city, but receive no reciprocal financial benefit. that would include for instance, the department applying for a grant from a foundation, provided that that foundation does not otherwise have a contract with the city. we have limited the application of interested party rules so that they only apply for 12 months after qualifying contract or other administrative matter, permit, license or contract. we have crafted a more objective definition of attempt to influence, which specifically excludes benign communications from the definition of interested parties. so for people who provide public comment or attend or speak at rallies, sit on the city hall steps or public fora, they are not interested solely because
they have engaged in the democratic process, a process we want to encourage. which is to say, while this has taken a while, i believe that we have gotten it right. but i know that some of you have expressed concerns about unintended consequences and i think that argues actually for this board to take action today, because if we fail to take action, this will likely end up on the june 2022 ballot and as agendized for such at the ethics commission this friday. and while i'm proud of this proposal, i also think we would be remiss in failing our responsibility as legislators if we do not do it here under this dome to ring in the troublesome -- rein in the troublesome behavior we have seen. i know it's hard for elected officials to tie their own hands, but i think we are better than that and i think that this
legislative branch of government is more courageous than that. and even if we're not inclined to, given what has happened in the city and the shame and embarrassment it has brought, i suggest that we have an imperative to pass this legislation today. as i said in committee, we engage in fundraising all the time as public policymakers. it's $8 million bond to rebuild san francisco general or the half a billion dollar bond to rebuild the seawall, or the parcel tax to support the public schools or the real property transfer tax to fund social housing. our generous constituents have endorsed each and every one of these proposals by vast super majorities. that is the fundraising that we were elected to do. not quid pro quo fundraising from interested parties. we should not -- what we should not be engaged in is the private
quid pro quo where we ask parties for money. we are narrowly tailoring this legislation to really get at that quid pro quo nexus and with that, i do have two further non-substantive amendments to make which i distributed to all of you. first, which is is to further exempt from the definition of interested party, people who attempt to influence by sending us e-mails, posting to social media or signing on to petitions. as a matter of implication, the ethics department has never interpreted this positive engagement to meet the definition of interested parties and it behooves us and will alleviate anxiety if we make that abundantly clear here. second and this is clerical only, removing the language exempting page 4, lines 1-2, pages 3, lines 4-5, but there is
no change at all to the meaning, you are in receipt of those. i want to thank my staff, again thank supervisor haney and thank deputy city attorney and our counsel ann pearson. thank you, colleagues, i hope we will pass this here today. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. and the amendments are not substantive? >> supervisor peskin: correct. >> president walton: do we have a second? seconded by supervisor chan. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you. i just wanted to thank supervisor haney and peskin for all their work on this. and goes back even further than all the hearings that you had in rules committee to the hearing that we had in the g.a.o. committee on the controller's integrity report on gifts to departments through non-city organizations, lacking transparency. so thanks to the controller's office as well and i would love to be added as a co-sponsor.
>> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. thank you, supervisors. just had a couple of questions i want to clarify on the record. some of the conversation that i had with you directly, supervisor peskin, but we have a pretty big project in the district with the san francisco giants along with prop as you pointed out, bond money. i just wanted to ensure when i'm reading under interest party, it says any party, participant or agent of a party or participant involved in a proceeding regarding administrative enforcement, a license, permit or any other entitlement for use before an officer, any board of commission, including the board of supervisors in which the officer sits, the department of
the officer, or the department of the designated employee. and then it goes into a number of different things. i just want to make sure i understand that clearly, because i know the san francisco giants pull a lot of different permits to do small events all over the city. i read that to say that if the administrative license, permit or entitlement for use is before an officer or board of commission, including us here, or the department of the officer -- and the department of the designated employee. can you clarify that? because i want to make sure we're talking about high-level administrative actions and not just the permit itself that would come before the department of the officer or the department of the designated employee? because it seems to me like there is a lot of small permits that a lot of different potential interested parties uphold. that would then preclude them from being solicited by that
department. and i think this is an absolutely important piece of legislation. i want to echo many of the things said by supervisor haney, and you, supervisor peskin, chan and others here today. i this is something that is certainly -- i think this is certainly that created a cloud over our city. we have to do everything we can, as you say, compel to act in these instances. i just want to make sure we're not talking about very small administrative actions or permits -- administrative action may not be the right word -- but small permits that could be pulled by interested parties that could then exclude them from being involved in activities that would certainly benefit the public good. as you said, unintended consequences. so you can clarify that? i read it again a few times. when i see that word, permit in the front of the department of the officer or the department of the designated employee, it
makes me a little concerned, but i just want clarification. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor peskin, through the chair. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, through president walton, to supervisor safai. the language that supervisor safai is asking about is actually in the legislation as originally introduced by supervisor haney and has not changed over the course of the deliberations in the rules committee. that language is set forth in section 3.610, administrative proceedings. but let me go to the example that supervisor safai gave. in the case, say, of the giants organization giving a large donation, of course, this board of supervisors would have to accept that through an accept and expend.
the chair, to the attorney, the part that i'm getting hung up on is license to the officer or designated appointee. and then, it says officer shall be any department head or elected official, and we define elected official. i just want to make sure that what supervisor peskin is saying is correct, if an entity were going to paul a permit for a park, that they would not be solicited later for a larger project. >> ms. pearson: deputy city attorney ann pearson. >> supervisor safai: and i'm talking about lines 21 and 22 --
>> ms. pearson: subsection a. >> supervisor safai: yeah. >> ms. pearson: there are five different types of individuals who can be interested parties. subsection a concerns people who are appearing in a proceeding, and i think we need to give meaning to that word, proceeding, so it's a proceeding in front of an individual, not just the pulling of a permit. >> supervisor safai: that was it. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor. >> supervisor safai: that was my main question. thank you, supervisor peskin. thank you, deputy city attorney pearson. it sounds like that's right. it sounds like it's the action that rise to a particular
level, not just a permit. if there's a different action that comes before a different body, it makes sense. >> president walton: thank you. and just for my clarity, supervisor peskin, when you talk about the duration when you can solicit funding, if you have a specific contract with the city, is it specific to the city or a specific department? so if a supervisor approval was made for d.p.w., but another contractor wanted to enter into contract or relationship with that body. >> supervisor peskin: so the officer -- if i understand your question correctly, if, for instance, the recreation and
parks department granted a discretionary permit or this board of supervisors granted a contract or an entitlement, that would [indiscernible] to those commissioners or that department head but not to other department heads. so for instance, we might not be able to solicit something because this board of supervisors approved something, but the head of another department who was not a part of our decision could. i believe i stated that correctly. is that right, deputy city attorney? >> ms. pearson: deputy city attorney ann pearson. i think you did. i think it's important to note that there may be a contractor who's an interested party for
one body but not another. >> president walton: thank you so much, deputy city attorney pearson. colleagues, i don't see any other names on the roster. there was a made to amend made by supervisor peskin and approved by supervisor chan. i believe we can take that motion same house, same call. so without objection, that motion to amend is approved. and seeing no other names on the roster, this is taken same house, same call, and without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously. madam clerk, we are now at roll call for introductions. >> clerk: yes, mr. president. supervisor peskin is first up to introduce new business. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. i will submit my legislation,
but i would like to adjourn and, if possible, from the full board of supervisors in the memory of our many decades long chief of protocol charlotte meyer schultz who was a district 3 constituent but who was a leader, a whole lot of fun, philanthropist, indeed, a geopolitical player who worked through seven different mayoral administrations as the chief of protocol, making san francisco incredibly welcoming for hundreds and hundreds of consuls general from around the world that come to this city and are headquartered in this city. she was also appointed for a period as the chief of protocol
for the state of california, for a half a dozen years. was bestowed by queen elizabeth to the royal order. charlotte was chair of the building committee, of the san francisco public library, cochair of the committee to restore the san francisco public opera house, and this city hall. born in texas, charlotte came to san francisco after completing her college degree at the university of arkansas in a degree in marketing, merchandising, and fashion design. she was married three times, most recently to the former secretary of state of the united states george schultz, and she was deeply, deeply committed to, and i think mr.
schultz said this, she was married to him and the city of san francisco. there's so much to say about her, ranging from flying across the ceiling in a beach blanket babylon production to another story of personal guests. she was a constituent of mine when mayor brown was serving, and i first ran for office. and as we all received, as we do every year, that incredible invitation for the annual party for the consular corps of san francisco. and i went to that party, and i met ms. schultz, and i said to her that she was my constituent, and i said -- and i'm going to tell the story.
she said don't tell mayor brown this, but i voted for you. and i said really? how does that work? i thought you were a brown loyalist? and she said, well, your mother called me on the phone, and i thought that was so sweet, and that was the kind of person that charlotte was. i would name something for her, but actually, when willie brown left his service as mayor at the end of 2003, he served for one night as the chief of protocol and did a remarkable job of thanking charlotte for her service, and that night, with the support of the class of 2000s board of supervisors -- miss calvillo might remember this -- we actually named the grand staircase in the grand rotunda
the charlotte schultz staircase. miss schultz, rest in peace, and we will send our official condolences to mr. gaddy that he will pass it on. >> president walton: thank you, and we will submit this in memoriam on behalf of the entire board of supervisors. >> clerk: thank you, provider peskin. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, madam clerk, and before getting to the item of introduction, i wanted to thank you, president walton, that we sit on the external board, so
appreciate you giving a space for us all to talk about some of the work that occurs outside these chambers. and though i don't have a lot to report because i am reporting on the state legislative committee where supervisor chan and i are members, and there are no immediate updates because the state legislative committee has not met since september. our next meeting will be in
january. so let us know if there are state bills that you would like us to bring to the state leg committee. and then, i have one item to introduce. colleagues, today i am introducing an eviction diverse ordinance. this would require landlords to provide written warning ten days before commencing the eviction process. it's an effort to take the lessons learned during the pandemic and create a permanent framework to divert tenants from eviction proceedings. except in limited circumstances involving threats to health and safety, this board of supervisors and our mayor have come together to ban most he vacations during the pandemic. we did so as a public health
measure, but it has become even clearer from our experience that making an eviction a last response is a benefit for us all, not just during covid but for all of our city. a landlord will be required to give a ten-day warning, allowing the tenant to correct the behavior that would lead to grounds for eviction. if passed, this would be the first comprehensive warning legislation by a california city to divert tenant-landlord disputed from form an eviction proceedings. colleagues, as you know, i spent 20 years as a tenant attorney fighting against evictions and for tenant rights. evictions make it difficult for tenants to find new housing, and studies show that evictions
cause job loss and physical and mental health loss. in san francisco, where many tenants are affordably housed thanks to rent control, eviction means at best a huge increase in rental costs if the displaced tenant can find a new home, and too often, it means homelessness or displacement from the city. evictions should be a tool of last resort. all too often, three days fly by, and tenants in a position to, for example, come up with rent money perhaps through a rent subsidy program or loan, they simply don't have the time to access these resources. an additional ten days as proposed in our legislation would be a game changer, with leading antidisplacement
advocates predicting that thousands of san francisco would otherwise lose their home. colleagues, we don't resolve any other dispute the way we resolve nonpayment of rent or breach of lease eviction. home foreclosures, consumer debt, car repossession, you name it, in no other situation does someone have just three days before losing their home or property, but for some reason, our system accepts three days as sufficient for resolving landlord-tenant dispute. if a warning period can keep people in their home and resolve the pending dispute, we have a looming obligation to make that happen. let's prevent preventible evictions, and i want to thank
my legislative aide, kyle, and the san francisco antidisplacement coalition for putting together this ordinance. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor ronen? submit? thank you. supervisor safai? okay. great. >> supervisor safai: thank you, madam clerk. just wants to give, as the president requested, a couple of quick updates. at the s.f.o. roundtable, there was an attempt by southern counties, santa clara county, there was an attempt by them to include them in the conversations there. ultimately, it was decided at the subcommittee level, not to include santa clara county because it would dilute the conversation and the resources that are happening at s.f.o. roundtable, and just to remind folks, we're talking about communities that are primarily
impacted by airplane noise, and so the southern part of san francisco is the most impacted, but -- for san francisco, but some of the surrounding communities, brisbane, daly city, so they wanted to keep the area tighter than expanding it beyond that. also, they're working with the f.a.a. to change some of the flight patterns. we've had those conversations. some of it's gotten better recently, but there's still a lot of issues with regard to flight patterns. we've been working with congresswoman spear's office to alter flight patterns, and her help has been crucial in this
matter. we are going to get a six-month review from the controller's office but our retirement fund has been doing extremely well. also, we're in the interviews for a new c.e.o., and we should have an update on that very quickly in terms of that new hiring and the direction for our agency. and then finally, colleagues, today, i am requesting and submitting a request for a hearing to better understand the mayor's office of housing and community development below rate b.m.r. program. this is in conjunction with the fourplex legislation that i introduced last week. as we talked about, there's a potential and the desire for there to be an affordability component, working with the existing b.m.r. program. however, there has been significant concern complaints from those involved in having
to work with the b.m.r. process, how long it takes to certify people, how long it takes to not only certify people for the program, qualify people for the program, and then how long units remain vacant or unsold because the program is a bit cumbersome. i know that supervisor melgar, having been a former deputy in that program, and myself a former deputy in community development, we want to understand better the number of participants in the program and to better understand what currently are the a.m.i.s being serviced and what funds are available for this program, and looking at some of the demographic information, and how long and how often units are leased, excuse me, rented, and/or sold, and how long that process takes. and as you know, the housing
crisis we face in our city is one of the most important things we look at, and i will continue to be a champion in that housing program, and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, madam clerk. today, i would like to join supervisor peskin in closing this meeting on behalf of charlotte schultz. an incredible leader, she was passionate about the well-being of our city and always was working toward the well-being of san francisco and its residents. charlotte worked alongside ten san francisco mayors and helped us all put our best foot forward. i was lucky to attend a 50
anniversary of our sister city relationship with the town of assisi in italy in 2019, and she hosted the mayor of assisi, stefania proetti, and she just had the city of san francisco shine like no other can do. i know the head of our sister city committees loved working with her. charlotte helped build bridges between adversarial politicians and with any project that came across her desk, she always gave it her all. she did this because the type
of woman she was and her unimaginable love for our beautiful city. charlotte was the type of public servant that we all strive to become, and i know that her legacy will live on for many years to come. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor walton? >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. just a couple of updates in regards to external boards and commissions. with caltrain, we approved 2.44 billion due to change orders and other delays, but we will have the opportunity to bring caltrain in to discuss this, of course, with all of you and in a different meeting. in terms of the bay area air quality management district, we've really started working closer together on addressing air quality issues here in san
francisco and also on a strategy for a.b. 6117, and supervisor melgar and i have participated in a couple of diversity trainings to try to work through ways and strategies to address environmental racism and other prejudices that come as we try to keep our environment clean. and in terms of workforce investment san francisco, we will have two new members of the labor council, and the next meeting is tomorrow morning, and it will also go over 2020 to 2021 fiscal year program outcome. and i do have one in memorial for rayshawn jones, sr. rayshawn jones, sr. entered the
work on may 27, 1971 in oakland, california. rayshawn was the oldest of his parents' four children. as the oldest, rayshawn quickly embraced his role as a big brother and protector of his younger siblings. while just a month older of his younger brother, lamont, and they followed his guidance while growing up in san francisco's potrero hill public housing committee. rayshawn knew the value of learning and committed himself to being a life learner. rayshawn was always hustling during different jobs. rayshawn's father started quickly nurturing his early
entrepreneurial spirit. rayshawn idolized his father. he mentored numerous youth in his potrero hill community and beyond while teaching them all viable life skill on how to navigate life outside of the housing project. rayshawn found great job in cooking delicious meals for all to enjoy, whether it was his famous barbecue that was seasoned to perfection, to his turkey lasagna or jerk chicken. his love of food led him to open several food businesses. understanding the challenges of growing up in public housing, rayshawn never forgot about his
family or his friends. through rayshawn's mentorship, he was able to help numerous youngsters leave the street life and enter a profitable career in the construction industry. even with the untimely death of his wife, yolanda jones, of 26 years, he remained steadfast in his commitment to ycaf, but he passed away almost nine months after his wife. he used to say to his wife, wherever you go, i go. on november 26, 2021, rayshawn departed this world to be with his wife, yolanda, and his father. the rest i submit.
>> clerk: thank you, supervisor walton. supervisor chan? >> commissioner chan: thank you, colleagues. the local agency formation commission is interviewing analysts for the public banking working group. we're also accepting applications for a commissioner seat, and i'm excited to announce we have hired two positions and appointed a new commissioner, jeremy pollock, which i think some of you know, will be lafco's new officer beginning in the new year, 2022, so we're excited. we're excited to have his experience to spear head lafco. we also will have [indiscernible] has accepted
the position of policy analyst for public bank. finally, jackie [indiscernible] was appointed to be our latest lafco commissioner last month. i look forward to hitting the groundworking in lafco next year and working on cleanpowersf and thanking my colleague, commissioner mar, supervisor mar, for sitting on the body with me, and thank you, commissioner preston and supervisor preston so we can move this important work forward. i also sit on the health service board, which we held another open enrollment, which i hope, colleagues, that you participated -- i hope that you participated. in total, we have over 70,000 enrollees. this process went smoothly because of the work of our
health services staff. in particular, i am looking forward to better understand our health insurance portability and accountability act, also known as hipaa, and to have a health maintenance organization, so as you can see, we're very busy during this pandemic, so thank you, and my team and i have been working on a lot of initiatives
>> clerk: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. that's a good transition because last november, san franciscans overwhelmingly voted for a new department of streets and sanitation as well as to form a commission over this department and the department of public works, which is the largest department that does not have any commission level oversight. this commission will deliver much needed structural reforms, including oversight and transparency at the department of public works as well as a needed level of oversight and staffing to deliver clean and healthy streets and sidewalks. although i was the original sponsor of this measure, it had a lot of support on this board,
so i want to thank those of you who initially supported it and those of you who are here now that support it, and though it had the support of a majority of this board, it is no longer a measure, it's a proposal put forward by the voters. with that in mind, i have been meeting with city administrator chiu, a broad spectrum of leaders from labor, including labors 261, who makeup much of the department of public works who will become the department of streets and sanitation, and many of you, including supervisor ronen, who is the other representative on our
transition team, to plan for the next steps and the rollout. with that, this is the first formal step that needs to be taken and a very important one at this board. the proposal requires us to set the official date for july 1, 2022, by which date the city shall establish a department of streets and sanitation commission, and that will come into effect three months after that establishment date. the creation of this department will have a significant impact on how our city operates and how effectively we provide and maintain clean and effective streets and a clean and accountable government. for that reason and because it
was passed overwhelmingly by voters, i hope to have your support moving forward so that we may keep our promises to the voters of san francisco. this motion is introduced today and it will be voted on next week. secondly, i happen to be introducing amendments to existing building code with legislation designed to hold everyone in our city who is upholding labor laws on their project. it involves unique labor standard compliance challenges. construction workers who did not receive all of their wages and mandatory benefits are likely to discover that despite their best efforts of state enforcement officials, many continue to be victims of wage theft, unaware of their rights or unable to have regulatory
authorities successfully recover on their behalf. general contractors or owners who receive city permits and licenses and who benefit from the construction workers labor may disclaim responsibility from making underpaid workers whole, leaving workers with a complicated and lengthy process with getting their back pay. existing studies suggests that the undergroun economy is at least a $10 billion problem of loss in california. statewide, the construction industry is the industry with the second highest level of labor standards violations as measured by state labor and penalty assessments and surpassed only by the restaurant industry.
the department of industrial relations collected fewer than 15% of the penalties and 2% of the back wages. enforcements are dwarfed by the number of contractors and projects in california, including san francisco. over 300,000 state licensed contractors perform $65 billion worth of permitted construction work in the state. we know that most of these contractors and most of these builders are following the law, but it is our responsibility to make sure that everyone who receives a permit or who is building in our city does so in a way that respects and honors the work of the people who are doing the building and that they follow all of our own local and state labor laws. so this legislation requires project owner to see accept responsibility for the completeness of their
contractor's payroll records and issue a certificate of final completion and occupancy until any outstanding labor violations have been resolved. this legislation requiring developers to certify or attest that all workers on this jobs from the general contractor to the subcontractors are receiving accurate pay stubs pursuant to california labor code 28-5.10 is the right and long overdue thing to do. this legislation will close a significant loophole that makes a project owner directly responsible for preventing wage
theft. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, madam clerk. a few updates -- i'll begin with a few updates from tjpa and abag. good news from tjpa, where i serve as vice chair. we, at long last, have a final choice that we will be voting on for executive director. for those of you that have not heard, it is adam van de water. i look forward to him taking the reins and having permanent executive leadership at tjpa.
we've heard that our d.t.x. project has been accepted into the federal new starts program. we have a lot to do between now and the end of 2023, when we need to have our federal application in to receive funding for our federal delivery schedule, and we'll be talking about that next week at the transportation authority board meeting, and we'll be talking about that at this week's tjpa meeting. at abag, my contribution, i guess, my largest contribution over the last couple of months is to hear, to listen to more than two dozen arena appeals from jurisdictions around the bay area. all were denied. i voted against all but one, and we will move forward as cities and towns and counties around the bay will try to
comply and come up with housing elements that show how we're going to deliver or at least zone for, plan for housing, at an unprecedented scale to meet californias -- california's unprecedented housing crisis. i also have a letter of inquiry that i've talked about before -- or the general topic before. yesterday, you may have noted that the chronicle reported on a woman who had been arrested on a theft charge two weeks after being arraigned on over 120 charges. she had been released by a san francisco superior court judge who ordered she be released with an electronic monitor but
released her without one. releasing someone with 120 misdemeanors with an ankle monitor seems nuts, but it's even more nuts to release her without one. sadly, and maddeningly, you may remain back in july that i was sending a letter of inquiry to the sheriff's department requesting information about the use of electronic monitoring for folks under their supervision. the sheriff department's response showed that 38% of people on electronic monitoring at the time were on warrant status for violating the terms of their release. in october, i sent a similar
letter of inquiry to the adult probation department regarding the use of monitoring under their a.p.d. supervision and prepare a report that compares and contrasts san francisco's use of electronic monitoring with other communities. and what prompted that was a case in the richmond. after this incident, i think it's time to engage directly with the courts to the extent we can. i will be sending a new letter of inquiry to the superior court regarding judges' use of electronic monitoring, if judges are monitoring success, if they are, and what
percentage of people actually get an electronic monitor put on before released. all of our criminal justice system has the responsibility of making sure that our community is safe, ensuring that repeat offenders get the help they need to stop and breaking the cycle of recidivism. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, colleagues. today, i'm asking for a hearing how communities are meeting the needs of older adult residents and the city's strategy to comprehensively provide housing across the spectrum. last year, the board of supervisors passed an ordinance that requires the department of disability and aging services to provide a needs assessment that includes an analysis of housing needs for seniors and
people with disabilities and an analysis of city housing programs or services that specifically target seniors and people with disabilities, including but not limited to, rental subsidies and homeowner grants. our city has already made some progress including building permanent affordable housing for seniors and people with disabilities through mohcd as highlighted in the 2022 overview report for seniors and people with disabilities. however, the programs that the city of san francisco provides are limited in scale and scope, and we lack a plan to meet the housing needs of our aging population. our programs are not meeting the range of the needs, including the needs to provide
more housing and ensure quality and affordable. i would like the b.l.a. to gather information on how other jurisdictions plan for the continuum of senior housing needs with a report that identifies key domestic and international jurisdiction with successful senior housing policies and plans and their outcomes, and also that focusing on ideas not currently being implemented in san francisco. in order to comprehensively plan for and provide housing across the spectrum, san francisco will need to be innovative and expand our approaches. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor mar. mr. president, seeing no further names on the roster,
that concludes the introduction of new business. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. at this time, would you take us to public comment? >> clerk: at this time, the board welcomes public comment. the best way to do so is to use your touch tone phone, which will provide you with a live stream of the proceedings. to do so, dial the number streaming on your screen, 415-655-0001 and when prompted, enter the meeting i.d. 2482-925-9272, and then press pound twice. once you're ready to get into the queue to provide public comment, press star, three, and listen carefully for the prompt that you have been unmuted, and just begin speaking your comments. at general public comment, you are welcome to provide comment
on the mayoral appearance earlier in this meeting, the minutes as they were presented from the october 26 and november 2, 2021 board meeting. at the later section of the agenda, which we haven't gotten to yet, those are items 36 through 41, those items did not go to committee, and the matters that are not on the agenda today but are within the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. all other agenda content has had its public comment requirement fulfilled. as stated, we do have interpreters on stand by. they're ready to jump in to assist the public with interpretation. we have chinese and spanish. all right. we are setting the timer for two minutes. operations, let's hear from our first caller, please. >> thank you. this is anonymous. can you please show the slides and let me know when they're up? >> clerk: yes, just one moment,
mr. anonymous. all right. we have them showing. >> thank you very much. this is anonymous speaking about the sunshine ordinance, as always. so what you're seeing on screen is a few of the texts between sfpd and the mayor's office between the thefts in union square and the louis vuitton thefts. the reason i sunshined them is it shows the mayor's office destroy nearly every record they create. in this case, the record was created at 1:00 p.m. i sunshined them at 4:00 p.m., less than four hours after the record was created.
the mayor has eight records of what i requested from january 2020, last year. eight records. this shows the various records reviewed by the sunshine committee this year. the ethics commission has made no rulings or again any sunshine complaint since 2017. that is completely broken. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have six listeners who are listening, and there are three callers in the queue ready to make their comment. if you're one of the six, and you would like to make comment this evening, please press star, three now. otherwise, we make take this group to the end. let's hear from our next caller, please, mr. atkins.
>> hello, members of the board. my name is chris [indiscernible], and i live in san francisco at 522 hyde street, just around the corner from the proposed injection site at 522 geary. i am in whole hearted support of this. there's an obvious population of people who inject drugs in the tenderloin, and this space can provide them with long-term intervention services and the support. my understanding is that a.b. 632 continues to be delayed, but i would ask that if san francisco decided to move forward, that those policies be codified in the bill to prioritize and ensure long-term success. i also understand that san
francisco officials and long-term employees have visited the successful s.i.s. in vancouver and hope those ideas and policies will create a stronger site here. this isn't just our backyard. people who inject drugs live in the tenderloin, and i believe the city wants to address their wants and needs, and we should not pass the buck to another area of the city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller. >> i ask that -- this is
regarding the supervised injection site proposed for 822 geary. many drug users have a mobility challenge and to get to an s.i.s. will present a significant challenge every day. and many of them don't use just once a day, but use them several times a day. this would be burdensome to the majority of potential clients.
822 geary is located nine blocks from market street, and at a 100-foot elevation claim from there. a fit person can walk there in about 12 to 15 minutes, but a person with a mobility challenge may need to take one bus or even two. the greatest concentrations of used needles are in the heart of the tenderloin and south of market between about mission and harrison and 6 and 13 streets. last year, 711 people died of drug overdoses in san francisco. only two of them were within a block of 822 geary. a block further, 1, a block further, one, a block further west, one, and a block further than that, none. my concern is that there's a
sort of field of dreams thinking going on where the belief is if you build it, they will come. unfortunately, this isn't realistic. i ask if they settle on a location for an s.i.s., that the city first determine where the greatest concentration of users would be and then to look where the most convenient location would be required. -- >> clerk: thank you. thank you for your comments. all right. we have five callers who are listening. if you would like to make comments this evening, please make sure you press star, three now. otherwise, operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> operator: madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, mr. atkins. mr. president? >> president walton: thank you. seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed.
madam clerk, let's go to our for adoption without committee reference agenda, items 36 through 41. >> clerk: items 36 through 41 were introduced for adoption without committee reference. a unanimous vote is required for adoption of these resolutions today. any supervisor may require any resolution to go to committee. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. do we have any supervisors that would like to separate any items? supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes, on
item 41, please. >> president walton: thank you. may i get a roll call vote on items 36 through 40? >> clerk: on items 36 through 40 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are ten ayes. >> president walton: thank you so much. without objection, the resolutions are adopted and approved unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 41. >> clerk: item 41 is a motion to establish the 2022 board of supervisors regular meeting schedule, pursuant to the board of supervisors rules of order. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, madam clerk, for providing the motion establishing our 2022 meeting schedule. i move to amend as follows:
first, restore our regular meeting on tuesday, november 29 and instead cancel the meeting on november 22, the tuesday before thank giving, to conform to the school district calendar. we do this every year, and i'm thinking it might be time for us to amend the rules of order to make this change permanent. second, i want to air a request by supervisor melgar, who sadly was excused from today's meeting due to a death in the family. she's asked to cancel the meeting on tuesday, october 4. sundown will mark the beginning of yom kippur, the most holy of holy holidays. i agree with supervisor melgar's request and am happy to move that today. i'm advised by the clerk the
way that the meetings fall on the calendar, we will not cancel the meeting for veterans day as we did in 2021. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen, and i believe we can take that motion same house, same call. >> clerk: second, mr. president. >> president walton: sorry. seconded by supervisor stefani. thank you, supervisor stefani. we have a motion on the floor to restore the meeting on november 29, 2022 and cancel the one on november 22 to comply with the vacation of the school district and also cancel the october 4, 2022 meeting to recognize yom kippur. and we can take that same house, same call, and without objection, that motion is carried, and we will take item number 41, same house, same
call, and without objection, that resolution is adopted. madam clerk, would you please -- do we have any imperative items? >> clerk: no, mr. president. none to report. >> president walton: thank you so much. would you please read the in memoriams? >> clerk: yes. today's meeting will be adjourned on behalf of the following beloved individuals: on behalf of rayshawn johnson, and on behalf of the entire board of supervisors, on the order of the royal empire, miss
sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill.
>> hello. how are you. >> very well. >> your helpers are here. >> you are looking wonderful. >> my goodness. you know what is so funny? we are anxious to get started with christmas. we haven't had thanksgiving. that is okay. in san francisco, we are celebrating this holiday cheer. we are going to enjoy the season because last year during this pandemic it was so hard for us to come together. santa, are you going to deliver those toys this year? >> a lot of toys. we will brick through at the port of oakland and get all of the