Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Land Use And Transportation Committee 20240712

Revenue loss there that were seeing in that first fiscal year. Then this is where it gets intricate. A portion of those revenues that we are adjusting directly within our proposal, and that includes the dsfg baseline revenues. In addition, the Mayors Office did assume as part of its projections losses in primary care, Behavioral Health, and Population Health as well. So in addition, there are other revenues that were managed such as 1991 realignment that goes to support our budget, but we its not something that we manage centrally. So that sort of 59 million of negative that you see in that balancing sheet, its part of this 132 that you see here. So what im doing is essentially matching some of the losses that we have. We did have some improvement over this assumption. Even though the instructions, i think, were issued in the middle of may, i think may 18th, and we did work with the Mayors Office in early may, a lot has happened in those six months since we submitted our initial projections. So we did have some improvements, which were recognizing here. Just know that the original 60 million is a portion of this 132 million in terms of expected losses and so were trying to be consistent and make sure were not double counting sources as we look for a balancing plan. Thank you. All right. Im going to go to commissioner bernal and then first of all, i would like to thank greg and jenny for the extraordinary amount of work that went into this basically having to scrap a budget that had taken months to prepare and do that same amount of work in a very compressed time line just in weeks with all different kinds of impacts and new dynamics. So thank you to both of you and your team for putting this together. We all understand what a heavy lift it was and are really grateful for that. I had two quick questions. The first one was, jenny, you had mentioned some anticipated revenue coming up for next year through the cares act. Does this budget assume any state or local funding assistance for future federal legislation such as the heroes act thats going through the congress . Yes. So currently, as part of the projections, we did make an an n assumption of 28. 2 million through the cares act that we were expecting. This was a sort of calculation based off of sort of what we knew the whole entire value of the cares act and then based on the portion that was allocated in the current year, what our value of that portion meant. We kind of did the math to get to the 28. 2. Just to recap, in the current year, we did we have actually received cash in hand about 23 million from the cares act, and its eligible to be applied towards specifically health care agencies. This revenue is separate from what the controller and may Mayors Office is tracking as additional revenue related to fema reimbursement. This is revenue that you recognize here. There is additional revenue that is being assumed and pro projected as part of the citywide budget, but thats not something that affects our target here today. But we can update you on that when we bring forward our Covid Response. To answer your question, we received 23 million and in addition we are expecting approximately 28. 2 million based on what our estimates are of whats remaining and allocated. Were still working to try to figure out what specifically those restrictions are, what are the reporting requirements as well as the qualifications. Great. Thank you. Just to clarify, commissioner, the 28. 2 that is still to come is from future allocations of already approved stimulus. Its approved. We have not made a speculative assumption of future acts of congress. Thank you. My second question, jenny, you mentioned additional mayoral priorities. As we know last week, the mayor laid out our road map for new Police Reforms and a key element was the Police Response to noncriminal activity and it seems as though it would involve a greater role for our hot teams, Homeless Outreach teams and street medicine and Behavioral Health divisions. Has there been any discussion about this and any would there be impact on the current years budget, or is that looking toward future years. Its potentially looking at future year initiatives. I think what the Mayors Office is trying to do is get all their balancing proposals in to see what next year looks like. So its hard to say, but i would expect sort of similar to us, we had priorities that still remain and continue and so we will work with the Mayors Office to make sure that her priorities are assumed in the budget. Greg, i dont know if you want to add anything to that. Yeah. Just that we have started talking conceptually, and i know the Mayors Office is really thinking and working along with other stakeholders about exactly what you raised and well be part of that. Theres nothing included in the budget in front of you essentially due to timing, but well keep you in the loop as those conversations are going. I do expect that well be part of that thinking about how the Health System and the criminal justice departments are interacting in the future on our streets. Thank you. Commissioner guillermo. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. Continue on the covid questions, on the i think its the a7 line, 13 million, is that a net figure on the cares act funding that relates to revenue to Health Systems in advance of Services Related to medicare reimbursement, and if its not, where would that have been suited . Another covid question, given that we dont know the impact yet of all of the costs associated with covid, will that information be provided to us prior to the final budget that the mayor will submit . Yes. We will be doing a separate conversation with you on the covid program. Were in the midst of really actively working on that. Weve got daily conversations going on through the Department Operation center to pin down what that program looks like, what were going to be assuming, and significantly, as you point to how thats going to interact with the federal revenues. That line a7, that does include that is a net figure. So as jenny described, some of those revenues from cares act are anticipated in the coming years budget. So theres that 28. 2 million. Theres about theres an amount that weve already received, and that is based on the medicare formula. So weve already received some of that revenue to offset our losses in the current year. But with all those factors, we still have anticipated losses at the hospital and thats due to reduction in specialty outpatient types of services. We have losses in primary care for the same reason. We have losses in Behavioral Health for the same reason. In our Public Health division revenues, all due to reduced activities under the Covid Response. So that figure is a net number that factors in some of those. I will add that a big question mark that were still kind of working through as a city and that will be a topic that comes up in the future covid discussion is the fema reimbursement. We are counting on a reimbursement through fema for a significant portion of our covid activities, but the duration and the level of that reimbursement is unknown and, perhaps, to a certain extent unknowable, but thats probably one of the biggest questions around the budget is to what extent well be able to receive those federal dollars to match our covid costs and for how long. Thats probably citywide. Its a 9figure question, hundreds of millions of dollars. Just one last comment, just to congratulate you on the work that youve done, particularly as it relates to really working not to reduce services and to not have any layoffs, and lets hope it continues that way. I wanted to say in an environment like this, for us to be able to for the department to be able to present at least for now a budget that looks like this without services and layoffs, reductions, really speaks a lot to the hard work thats been done in a very short period of time. Thank you. Commissioner. I want to thank you as well. This has been a very tough time in the last number of months, and youve really its been an unbelievable effort to turn things around in what you presented. I guess one of my concerns that you had raised is Mental Health sf. What is, you know, coming down the line with from whether its coming from the general fund, what is dphs interaction responsibility, and will that be factored into this budget, or is it going to be a work in progress depending on the Mayors Office . Im just concerned that there probably is going to be an increased need for services as well. So thats where i have a big question. If i could just start, commissioner, with the answer, and greg and jenny can fill in. A great concern about the needs. Right . Especially given what our community has been through as well as the intersection of the covid19 Pandemic Response with Behavioral Health. Right . We are working to shift our existing system and resources to respond to that need. In this next iteration, when the budget comes back to you, depending on the conversations with the potential investments Going Forward, we may have more to share with regard to our investments in Mental Health sf. The other thing is, the commission will recall that to really fund what was envisioned Going Forward for Mental Health sf, the price tag was over 100 million and that we had always been there had been a clarity that those resources were going to be needed to get the program to where it was envisioned to be and those funds had to be found. So i think, you know, we are continually its certainly remaining Mental Health remains a priority for us in terms of the content of what it envisions. We are going to need to have the resources strengthen our work in that area. There are many intersections, including with the Police Reform efforts that are moving forward. Again, in conversations with the Mayors Office and then i think when our budget goes to the board, its likely that there will be another iteration of public ha can be done and what Additional Resources might be made available. Ill let greg answer any Additional Details that i havent. Yeah. I think you covered a lot of it. We will be having more many more conversations talking about the Mayors Office and other policy makers. I think a couple of things to point out is, we are trying to some of this, at a minimum, lay a groundwork to keep our momentum moving forward. So in particular, two of the items that are on slide 7 where we have this is the emerging needs section. We did make an effort to protect some of the key initiatives that had been identified through our Strategic Planning process and that we know are really important. One of those is our hr investment. Weve heard that through our Behavioral Health division consistently that one of the key things we need to lay the kind of Structural Foundation for any of these changes regardless of what the funding level is in the coming year, is improvements in our Behavioral Health, hiring, keeping positions filled and kind of strengthening the infrastructure for that division so we are moving forward with that initiative. Then similarly, on the quality program, which affects the hospitals and through the hospitals, its our Psych Services at zuckerberg and elsewhere in the system. So we are trying to make sure that that infrastructure is there so that depending on what the funding scenario is, that is worked through with the policy makers, that we have the ability to execute. Thank you. I just dont want to get blindsided. Yes. Put it that way. I appreciate your response. Understood. Yeah. Mr. Green, do you still have a question . Actually, no. I would just add to the chorus voices saying how we markable this work remarkable this work is. The thoughtfulness and the fact that youre coming in so close to where we need to be at the end of the second fiscal year is just quite remarkable and a testament to your hard work and your deep understanding of virtually everything we do in every Division Within the department. So i only have the highest praise, and i really appreciate your clarifications of the document. Thank you. Commissioner chow. Yes. I echo everybodys admiration and obviously it doesnt take away from the extreme hard work for you to have put this together. Looking at the so im glad that you continued the initiatives that we thought were very important for the infrastructure because i think that without those backgrounds, like the hr and the quality programs, which we know are in response also to the deficiencies that we have seen and been criticized for, this this is a small amount of money to really put in to that to be able to do all of the other programs youre talking about. So i think we really want to strongly support those stay in and work with the city to understand the importance of that since weve been criticized in those two areas particularly. I am concerned that, as were looking at obviously, it relates to the failure of the city budget to be able to come up with the general funds that were talking about. We all know that that certainly is almost conservative the way that the structure theyve structured the budget instruction. It may take years before we see the towers to fill if were lucky in terms of having people come back and work and play in the city. Were showing that this is kind of backwards. Were looking at the first fiscal year with a very large positive in order to balance off a very terrible second year and end up the whole thing, if you then add the fact that we are using about 68 million of one time money is nearly close to 200 million, and that maintains your workforce. That doesnt take into consideration the covid problem and Mental Health. It doesnt speak then out a fiveyear basis of really being able to pull out of this hole. So we failed one year with one time money basically, kept the workforce intact. The second year we go into a huge deficit based upon the budget assumptions, and im not sure that you can you want to even try to project the second, third i know that youve got the fiveyear projection from the city that shows more optimistically that comes. If we are going to look towards the fiveyear, would you be able to give us some feeling that this isnt just a twoyear fix and were going to have to come up with even more and would it be something that maybe you really have to look at in the second year . Its a hard theoretic question. This has to go before the Mayors Office to be able to deal with all of the things that need to go to the board. Its a tremendous effort. Its really very fine. But im looking at the fiveyear issue. I think the second year already proves were going to have problems. Yeah. Well, i think your analysis of this is exactly right, dr. Chow. So we absolutely are, in this plan, essentially saying were going to all these over the last five, six years, weve been building up reserves. Weve been benefiting from favorable general fund years in term of Capital Projects and investments in it, et cetera. We are pretty explicitly here saying were going to use this good news that we had piled up and were going to use that to say lets live to fight another day, and we are proposing a budget that does is loaded into that first year and using some of those one time solutions. So were not proposing budget that is going to solve on going this larger general fund program. I think my response to that would be, number one, it is allowing us to live to fight another day, and it will allow us to get to a period where we have a little bit more certainty over what the world looks like. So there are a couple very large unknowns that are still hovering out there. Those include things like what is their assumption in this budget projection about the trajectory of the economy and how thats going to change. We could end up better, and we could end up worse. The city is going to have to make assumptions about what the level of federal support is going to be to tie to this budget. But really, i think kind of taking that all on balance, were at a moment right now where we have, as you described, a lot of huge needs that are dependent on the health department, covid, Behavioral Health, all these issues that weve been talking about. Right now, i think is the year for us to do what were doing where were going to kind of cash in on the work that weve done to prepare for this over the last several years and buy us some more time to get some clarity and certainty to work with the city, and i think the city is going to be doing the same thing. The alternative would be that we make deeper cuts to ongoing expenses, which would include our Service Levels at a time when we have these really great needs. So we may come to that point, and when we are at our budget conversations later this year and next year, we may still have a very large unsolved deficit that were going to need to make some even kind of harder decisions to grapple with and the city will as well. But that is kind of the way that i see this is us making a proposal that buys us some time and helps the city be able to fund our Covid Response and some of these other initiatives even though it is a little bit lopsided. So i think youre correct, and i wish we had solutions that would be kind of Ongoing Solutions to the citys financial problems, but i would rather get through a year and see where we are before making those choices given Everything Else thats going on in the extreme needs and burdens that are out there right now. You know, mr. Wagner, i thank you for those comments. I think thats exactly the right approach, and i hope our fellow commissioners feel that the department has put forth. We need to get through the year and we need to be able to answer the needs these people need and we can always hope for things to change, but i think were going in with our eyes open as to what we may have to do in the future weve got to answer the needs of the people today. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions . If not, we have a request for approval. Is there a motion to approve the proposed budget for fiscal years 202 it 21 and fiscal year it 2. I will do a roll call vote. Mr. Bernal. [ roll call ] great. Congratulations, everyone. This is a great budget year. Thank you again to greg and jenny for all of your great work. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. We can move on to the next item. Item 7 is the annual fiscal year 1920dph sole source waiver usage report submitted to the board of supervisors in june to meet the requirements. Item 8 is related and might be discussed in tandem. Its approval for 21. 42 sole source waiver usage. Item 8 is an action item. Michelle, i believe, is on the phone and not on video. Correct. Good afternoon, everybody, Health Commissioners. This is michelle ruggels, director of the Business Office without a camera today. Sorry about that. Good afternoon. So what i wanted to go over are the two items. You have a powerpoint. Im not going to go over the powerpoint, but im going to weave it in as we go through. So it might be useful for reference, but ill be covering it. The two items we have is the sunshine ordinance requirement, which is the annual dph sole source waiver usage report which we submit to the board every year in june. You dont need to approve this. It is just for your information. The second request is for your approval, and this is our request to the Health Commission for advanced approval of a potential chapter 21. 42 sole source waiver usage, which seems weird. Ill explain it especially if you havent been through this before. But let me start with the annual sole source report are. So we refer to it as the sunshine ordinance in short, but its a requirement by this chapter, 67. 24, that at the end of each fiscal year, the city department, all city departments have to send a list to the board of supervisors of all of the professional sole source contracts, meaning contracts we selected without a solicitation that were either entered into in fiscal year 1920 or already existed and were continuing into fiscal year 1920. Essentially, theres three categories of sole sources where we get a waiver. The first one is probably the broadest. Its chapter 21. 5, and theres acceptable justifications such as goods or services that actually only one source provides or sometimes we send out a letter of interest and we only get one prospective vendor and no other source satisfies those requirements. If we meet one of these rules, we submit the request for a sole source waiver and all the supporting documentation for the citys office of Contract Administration for approval. Sometimes they dont approve it, in which case we either do without or we have to go through the solicitation process. Thats 21. 5. Chapter 21. 3 are vendors with proprietary rights to their software and hardware and then the associated Maintenance Agreements will be treated as a sole source contract. Thats probably our largest area. Then chapter 21. 42, which well talk about in the next report, but this is all the way back to 2006, the department of Public Health had there was an amendment to the administrative code to add this section which authorizes dph to use as a sole source for nonprofits if were in a gap period between solicitations. So it allows ongoing authorization. Ill talk more about that in a minute in the next report. So in front of you, you have a memo, which is what were planning to submit to the board of supervisors to respond to their request. So in that report, you have an attachment that indicates it lists all the contracts where weve used a sole source waiver. It lets you know what sole source we used 21. 5, 21. 3, and it indicates the justification, whether it was the full contract or a Program Within the contract and if it was new this year. Just an overall summary, we had 121 sole source waivers that we used in 1920. Under chapter 21. 5, about six of them were new and 9 existing. That was 15 of the 121. The biggest area where weve used this is 21. 3 with the soft area Maintenance Agreements. We have 65 existing sole source waivers and three new ones. Thats 68. Then for the chapter 21. 42, thats for the nonprofits. We had 8 new ones and 30 existing. Thats how we reached 121. That in a nutshell is the annual report tha well be submitting o the board of supervisors prior to july 1st. Do you have any questions about that report . Mark, do we have any Public Comment . Do we have any Public Comment . If the caller on the line would like to speak, i would please request they press star 3 to raise their hand. We have no Public Comment. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions . Commissioner chow. Ms. Ruggels talked about 121, but the sheet reads 127. Is that correct, or is some duplicated . I think well, i hand counted. I think some of the lines, it starts on line 1 and that isnt actually a contract. Oh, okay. All right. So its 121 even though theres 127 lines. Yeah. Got you. Okay. Thank you. Its confusing. Sorry. No problem. Its really a very extensive report. Im hoping the supervisors appreciate it. Yeah. We also conducted around 40 solicitations in both fiscal year 1819 and fiscal year 1920. Theres a lot of work not to use sole source waivers. When its unavoidable, thats what we use. Is it okay can i move on to the next one. Yes. There are no other questions from commissioners, i think were good to go. So the next one, as i mentioned, is our request to the Health Commission for advanced approval of a potential chapter 21. 42 sole source waiver usage. This is sort of odd, perhaps, to be asking for advanced approval, but actually expedites and assists the department quite a bit. So what this is, though, is each year or many or probably since 2000 when this started, we have been submitting a list of contracts to the Health Commission for advanced approval, and we take that approval list, the potential approval list, and whenever we actually need to use it, we give that to the citys office of Contract Administration. When they see that you have provided that approval, then they allow that to move forward. So thats how it actually speeds up the process quite a bit. Mostly, these are well, theyre an nonprofit contracts. Thats the only ones that qualify. They have to be unique to the department, consistent with our mission and goals, and require specialized knowledge, training, personnel that are limited to be provided by to be provided by a limited number of nonprofits. So each year, we review our list and so the baseline is all of our existing contracts. Then from that, if theres any Agency Contractor thats gone out of business, obviously theyre removed. Then we look at has somebody been on the list sometimes we retain contracts that we may or may not know if were going to have a contract with, but they seem like theres a potential. So we just leave it on there. Anyway, so we review it that way. The some of the reasons why this becomes really useful is most of our contracts well, all of these just about have gone out for a sol i solicitatit if theres a gap between like right now actually, we had done solicitations, but then we had to delay the implementation because it was going to be a significant change for one of our solicitations, but with covid, there wasnt the capacity. So this will allow us to continue those existing contracts that are doing existing services. So when something comes up that doesnt allow us to get a new solicitation authorization in place, then this provides that gap authorization. Other times, the board of supervisors or the mayor may allocate additional funding during the annual funding process with an expectation that the service has immediate implementation. So in those cases, when we can, well start the service and then well back into the solicitation process so that we can at least get the project started on more of a pilot basis. Then initiatives come up during the year or something will rise up that needs immediate attention. So this will allow us to add that funding especially if its a little bit different than something that a vendor is currently doing. So what you have before you is the list of all of our dph nonprofits. You have it in the list, and then you have it broken down in that table to provide a little bit more information. So on the table, if someones new to the list, they have become a service again. I mean, youll recognize some of these or you may recognize some of them. They may have not been a contractor and then came back on to the list. So then we have not current contractor, keep on the list. It seems like in this california Pacific Medical center, we may need a contract. Then we just have our list of current nonprofits across dph with most of our nonprofits being in the nonhospital sections of the department, although there are a few three, i think, nonprofits inside of laguna honda. So this is today what were asking for is your advance approval of this list in the event that we should need to activator utilize 21. 42 to either continue an existing contract or to start up something that has a priority need. Im happy to answer any questions. Mark, do we have Public Comment on this item . Do we have any Public Comment . If any of the callers on the line would wish to leave Public Comment, i ask they please press star 3 to raise their hand so i can call upon them. Okay. Theres no Public Comment. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions . Commissioner chow. Yes. I just wanted to make the following comments that first, to thank ms. Ruggels because for many years, the whole topic of the sole source and the multiplicity of complications was explained in the last report was very mystifying to the commission. I think once we had set up in this fashion, it was much clearer. I actually am reminded that the reason the sunshine report to the board of supervisors comes before us is that previous commissions have asked that we take a look at that report since its being submitted and had very Important Information for us as often contracts become, and we were being told that they were sole source. For those of us who sat on the contracts committee for many years could never quite remember what sole sources were until ms. Ruggels and her staff put together that very fine explanation. Then the creation of the nonprofit contractor report with the fact that it could then display what types of services were being were being carried out by these contractors was another enhancement from the department undertook to make this a meaningful report. I wanted to comment and thank the department of for continuing we were removing ourselves from one of the line items. Im wondering, mark, if you remember that we were doing that and in the past and you didnt have to exclude yourself from the entire list but for that area in which you were then a responsible director or governance person. I could be wrong but i remember doing that when i was on the board. I do not recall that on these report but my memory is faulty so i apologize that i dont have that knowledge right here. Im wondering, can we be i would suggest and i would ask how time sensitive this request is. Weve already received your presentation but when we can have classification. The next meeting, even though it focused on business at the hospital the next meeting is june 23rd and its a full commission meeting. In case it needs to be approved by just have it voted on on junt now . I think thats fine. Just to make the point the other one, the sole source report to the board, you are actually not voting on so that one you dont need to worry about. Correct. Just item 8. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you mark. Actually i will find out. I am on 9 with other business. Commissioners, do you have any asks . Mark, thank you, i would just like to note that at different points during todays meeting and also as weve been addressing the pandemic and other issues, the department has certainly acknowledged that the disproportionate impact this pandemic has had on communities of color, particularly the black, African American community, and to let folks know anyone who is watching that we will be having a presentation during an upcoming meeting of the equity efforts of the department, not only in addressing the pandemic but also more broadly in our work to protect publichealth and that should be coming up in one of the meetings happening soon and that would be a presentation from the doctor who leads the equity issues and the departments lead in the emergency Operation Center for the Pandemic Response. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. Any other comments . Questions . Yeah, will they be addressing the latino disparity in terms of the covid . Yes, absolutely. Weve seen from all of the data, the Latin Community is dis purse for atly impacted wit basedod the ability to work from home and the number that our essential employees who continue to have potential exposure based on their need to work outside the home. So yes, that would be a part of the presentation as well. Thank you. So the next item is a couple things, just to followup on commissioner burnels presentation on equity. I am making a presentation on thursday on dr. Bennetts what she presented to us on Health Equity to the San Francisco general foundation. Dr. Erlics group has an excellent powerpoint of what they are doing to implement and what they have done to implement for equity at the hospital which i think would be, im hoping it would also be included because its excellent information that is in theyre presenting. Thats item 1 and then for the other business for next commission meeting, where Behavioral Health will be presented to us, id like just to make sure that during this presentation, that the Behavioral Health issues with the closing of the juvenile justice center, be included and addressed since that has been brought to my attention by the public group of taxpayers for justice that what the future plans would be in that department for Behavioral Health for the youth. If theres no other business, do we have a motion to adjourn . I just appreciated the upcoming presentations of the department will work on those. I just also wanted theres been so much challenging news i wanted to share good news that i just got from zuckerberg hospital for the first time in months. Theres no one with covid19 in the icu and at zuckerberg so this is some positive news to share with the commission, latebreaking stuff. I just wanted to share that. Great. Thank you director. Not only to the staff and everyone at the zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital but the people of San Francisco for observing the safety guidelines and the publichealth orders to get us to this place. So thats really very encouraging news, thank you for sharing that with us. All right. Do we have a motion to adjourn . So moved. All right. [roll call] thank you, everyone. Great meeting and have a good evening and be safe. Thank you, everyone. Thank you thank you good night. Good afternoon, and welcome to the land use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco board of supervisors today. Im the chair of the committee, aaron peskin, joined by dean preston. Do you have any announcements. Yes, due to the covid19, to protect the city, the board of supervisors legislative chamber rooms are closed. However, members will be participating remotely. This precaution is taken pursuant to the statewide stayathome order, declarations and directive. They will attend via video conference. Public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. Both channel 26 and sfgovtv a streaming the number across the stream. Comments are available via phone by calling 4156550001. Again, thats 4156550001. The meeting id is 1455134299. Again, thats 1455134299. Press pound and pound again. When connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted. When your item comes up, press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. Best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television and radio. You may submit Public Comment in either of the following ways email myself, and it will be forwarded to the supervisors and it will be included in the official file. Finally, items will be appear on the june 30th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you, and we have been joined by vice chairs safai and with that, could you please read the first item. Yes. Item number one is an ordinance amending the administrative code to add tourists or transient youth under the Residential Hotel conversion to set it at less than 7 days to provide a process by which owners or operators of regulated hotels can request that the period be longer on a casebycase basis, to amend the definition of permanent resident and affirm the appropriate findings. Thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, after hearing Public Comment, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to be called of the chair. Is there any Public Comment on item number one . Members of the public who wish to provide comment should call 4156550001. The meeting id is 1455134299. Press pound and pound again. Can you check if there are any callers in queue. I have one caller in the queue. I will unmute them now. Thank you. Hello, caller. Hello. Im a manager here at San Francisco sro and tourist use hotel. I just want to say that after, you know, weve gone to court about this, its been a long difficult road to get through to be on board. I just want to invite to the table the owners, the people who run these buildings. I want to say youre making this a little short for me when you buy the business, you have to go and give five years of the history to find out what kind of money they were making, what kind of people they were having, what their average daily rate, five years of business. I think its short to be taking it one year and its where everybody purchases a building is a permanent resident. Its okay, but i have permanent residents. Its not that. To get to one end thats meet lee going timmediately going toa permanent resident here, it doesnt work out, they have issues or Something Like that, dont get along with other tenants, whatever it is, im saying, do you know how much money it costs to get a tenant out . A lot. Im just saying, would you consider that because i think its really important that you think about those sort of things. Its not just like i mean, i have monthly visibility. Its just i dont have every Single Person coming into the building becoming a permanent tenant. If that makes any sense. Thats my comment. Thank you for your comment. Are there any other members of the public for item number one . Yes. I have three additional callers. Next speaker, please. Linda chapman representing nob hill neighbors. Together with nob hill together with chinatown, the original legislation passed back in the day when [indiscernible] housing committee. I would very much like to be able to participate in this and have other people who have maybe even more direct and recent experience than i do. On nob hill. We have thousands of sros. On my block are three sro buildings with over 200 units. The rest of us in flats and apartments, there are no more than 30 or 32. Many of our sros have been lost to unlawful conversions, including at least one and maybe two on my block. Only the chinatown one was saved. 1499 california, which used to contain nob hill residents. They became a hotel. Now, i see that they are leasing, and in talking with one of the women who actually lived there, she says, well, they were caught and they restored part of it but not all. I have to say that when i i acted as paralegal to the author of the legislation back then, and i have to say i was young. It was an experiment. Certainly there are enforcement provisions that could be a lot stronger. Now that i have more experience, like enforcement systems, i would make changes there. I would some of those ideas to supervisor peskin for provisions. I didnt comment on this. I didnt know it was coming up. I have called a number of people that i was calling in the past trying to get in touch with chinatown today and Freddy Martin who is now head of the fda and housing. Carl is also interested in this. Im glad to hear its being continued. Maybe what is proposed now is perfect, but i havent seen it. I think all of us who have experience with this, like sue hester, some that were taken, you cant succeed sometimes because the legislation is not what it should be. I would like to help make it what it should be. Your time has expired. Thank you, ms. Chapman. Next speaker, please. My name is samantha and i manage a mixed use sro, tourist hotel. This is a Family Business. We do rent rooms by the week and the majority of our events are San Francisco residents. Were able to rent by the week without requiring a deposit plus the full months rent. Many of our occupants also cant afford to pay by the month and they dont have access to that capital where they would have to provide it. So i suggest no. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, caller. You have two minutes. Hi. Good afternoon, chairman peskin and supervisors. This is an attorney for the Hotel Coalition and numerous other individual owners. Many of my clients are immigrants who have made a life for themselves in San Francisco with a Family Business operating an sro. This is a lawful business renting rooms by the week with seasonal tourist rentals as allowed by law. The ordinance would take away their businesses without compensation. Simply wrong. The worst time is inflicted on the people who the city is trying to protect, the sro occupants. They are unable to pay a months rent let alone a security deposit. While it may be wellintentioned, resulting harm is obvious. It will be on the city itself in the inform of Environmental Impacts which has not been evaluated in a proper ceqa review. Its illegal for a number of additional reasons. The am oartization period is insufficient and the hearing process is vague. The Building Inspection Commission is not empowered to hold them in the first place. They have certain powers and serving as a quasi judge is not one of those powers. The board of supervisors have the ability to grant that power as it was created about i a vote roinishivetive. Were talking about a judicial function. It discriminates between sro owners, hotel owners, and the owners of other uses. Lastly, as were discussing a land use category change, a rezoning, it needs to be referred to the planning commission. We submitted a letter to you detailing these objections and others. This ordinance is being pushed through at break neck speed. We would reflect as the previous caller did, previous time to review it, make comments on it more fully and to engage with your office. We urge you to please vote no on this proposal, thank you very much for your consideration. Counselor, perhaps you missed what i indicated at the beginning of the meeting that this item will be continued to the call of the chair subject to Public Comment. Are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item . Mr. Chair, that completes the queue. Okay. Then i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair on that motion, madam clerk, a roll call, please. On the motion to continue to the call of the chair. [ roll call ] you have three aye. Next item. A resolution on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco to apply for accepted extend 1. 5 million in local early Action Planning grants program, funds from the California Department of housing and Community Development for citywide planning projects. Back from a twomonth dsw stent putting up a field hospital, james lick on behalf of the department of city planning, the floor is yours. Thank you, sir peskin and supervisor safai and preston for hearing this item today. Im james with the Planning Department. My colleagues and i are here before you today with a resolution to allow us to apply for a grant that would help fund two planning projects, the Housing Element Environmental Impact report and planning for housing and Priority Development areas or pdas on the west side of the city and county. The grant will be part of the citys budget process and it will go before the budget and finance committee as part of the Planning Department budget. The California Department of housing and Community Development is looking to support citywide planning projects that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. The state requires that the city and county provide a resolution authorizing us to seek a grant for this work as part of the application. We request that you approve this item in committee today to allow us to provide that resolution to the state. If you have any questions about the Housing Element update, the Housing Element eir, or the website pda projects, my colleagues are here to address them, and, again, thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Glick. Are there any questions from the members of the committee. Yes. Supervisor preston. Thanks, chair peskin. Can you just explain a little more the purposes of the grant and particularly im curious when we talk about the analysis of streamlining as well as incentivizing development, whether were talking about housing generally or any priority on Affordable Housing in the context of this grant. Yes, supervisor peskin. I can direct you to my colleagues with some of the specifics, but let me talk to the general intent of the grant. It is not specific to Affordable Housing. In fact, encompasses a lot of different potential rezoning, environmental clearance, general policies that accelerate housing production, preapproved site and architectural plans or objective design standards, and there is a specific components which we are sort of using to address the Housing Element eir, which is the funding allows for the meeting with fixed cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment or allocation goals. A huge portion of that is our Housing Element eir. If you have specific questions about either the Housing Element portion, i can direct you to the proper person, and they can speak to the project if you have specific questions about that. I hope that answers your question and explains a little bit more the scope of the grant. Yeah. Thats helpful. I think im trying to understand, though, if thats a choice we are making in terms of it not being specific to Affordable Housing or if thats the criteria for the grant to keep it broad in terms of the criteria that you just described applying for. It is not a specific requirement that we focus on Affordable Housing. We have actually specified it in particular in the west side pd as housing for persons with special needs, developmental disabilities, the intent, i believe, on the west side portion is to certainly explore all Affordable Housing opportunities that we can. There was not a specific call in the grant to focus just on Affordable Housing, though the Planning Department obviously intends to focus as much as possible on that. Well, im just getting up to speed. This is not one we were briefed on before. I dont know to which extent the supervisors were involved in this. Obviously with limited funds, i would like to see the prioritizing of Affordable Housing in this context. Now, maybe that can happen. I understand they are planning grants so maybe there will be more consultation as they move forward. But i did just one other thing, trying to understand the timing here, so is this i understand theres a deadline on this coming up for this to be submitted, is that right . Yes. The deadline for submitting the application with the agreement to apply for the grant is july 1st. However, as we go forward and refine the process as we did with the sb2 grant, the prior grant we applied for under Similar Program from acd, there was some refinement of our process and our projects as it went along. So we are going to get the application in prior to july 1st, and it will probably be subject to negotiation with hcd and potential changes as we go through sort of a Technical Assistance and Consultation Program with them. Im sure that our planning staff would be happy to work with your office and with the committee however possible to address any concerns in terms of how weve specified or scoped the projects before a final Grant Agreement is signed. Unfortunately, this was a bit of a scramble to pull a draft together so that we could both submit it to you and get it submitted in time to hcd. Got it. Has there been any consultation with the west side . Obviously this is primarily impacting part of the west side. Wondering if theres been any discussions with either district one, district four, or district seven about the scope of it. Let me ask paolo or mary ann to speak to if theyve had any conversations with supervisor moore or any of the other west side supervisors, please. Sure. Supervisor, im with the Planning Department. Let me address, first, the affordability component. The Housing Element is different from previous elements, different from previous updates. Its based on racial and social equity the center of this update. This grant will support Environmental Review addressing some of the social indicators that we need to include. On the west side, weve been working for more than a year with supervisor moore, president yi, and fewer. The work on Community Engagement and housing strategy is on district four. We have partnered with one of the Community Organizations to carry that coordination. Were working very closely with preston on Family Friendly housing, and theres a proposal for a pilot and a sketched proposal by the end of the year. Theres also a commitment to collaborate strategy that the Planning Department and supervisor yee will be agreeing upon with supervisor fewer, were starting the work. There is some focus on the transit corridors and were starting the engagement process. The three of them are under the west side strategies, and as you know, you approved the extension of the Priority Development on the west side of the neighborhoods and theres a commitment to support those neighborhoods in terms of addressing some of the Community Planning needs as well as some of the investment strategies. They are part of an overarching framework called homes housing outreach media and engagement strategy where were starting the housing strategies with engagement process. We also have on the line paolo who is planning manager for that effort if you have more specific questions. Supervisor preston. I still my only remaining question is, as i understand the general concentrations have occurred, i guess im trying to understand how this particular grant and i confess. I dont know the flexibility that you all have in how you can define the scope and the terms of this agreement in order to carry out the work and whether there is a roll for supervisors of the impact of districts in shaping how this 1. 5 million will be applied for and the condition on which it will be received. Im just trying to understand if theres been consultation about this specific grant or not and frankly if not, you know, whether its more appropriate to, you know, look at this week, you know, when after that consultation has occurred or maybe its already occurred. Thats what im trying to find out. Supervisors, may i answer the question . Yes, please. Please. We have been working on them in shaping the scope of this grant as well as some of the Additional Resources that the Planning Department needs to allocate in order to carry the work in these three districts. Thank you. All right. Supervisor safai, any comments or questions . Seeing none from supervisor safai, why dont we open this up to Public Comment. Thank you. I dont have any questions. Members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment should call 4156550001. The meeting id is 1455134299. Press pound and pound again. Operations, are there any callers in queue . Mr. Chair, there are no callers in the queue. Okay. Public comment is closed. Colleagues, if theres no objection, i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation as a Committee Report. Seeing no objections, madam clerk, a roll call, please. On the motion as stated. [ roll call ] thank you. Could you please read the next and final item . Yes. Item number three is a motion to approve [indiscernible] for unnamed streets located on the San Francisco Park Commission property within dc lot 337 and mixed use project area. Members of the public who wish to provide comment call 4156550001. The meeting id is 1455134299. Press pound and pound again. If you have not already done so please star 3 to line up to speak. Thank you, ms. Major. We are joined by rebecca from the port of San Francisco. I understand you have a short powerpoint you want to share. The floor is yours. Hi. Thank you. Thank you, chair peskin and good afternoons preston and safai. A presentation for you, and just a background i direct the Waterfront Development projects. Give me a frown face if my voice is cutting out. Im here before you on the mission rock project. This is the official naming a motion to name the unnamed streets in this development site. Youre probably familiar with Mission Rocks from previous actions. A bit of a background, weve been working on it for 12 years, the city, the state, the voters of San Francisco, and were on the cusp of construction and phase one and then occupancy in the next 24month construction schedule for phase one. Overall, mission rock is about 28 acres, including that pier 48 site you see on the righthand side jutting out into the bay. Its 2. 7 square feet, 1200 new homes and apartment buildings. Some affordable. And then office, retail production, and then that pier 48 site will be developed in the next maybe decade or so. We also have 8 acres of parks and open space sitewide. On the phase one final map back on june 2nd allows development of the first four buildings. You can see in the picture here, it comprises phase one is comprised of two Office Buildings or exactly two Office Buildings, two apartment buildings, delivering 540 units overall, 200 of which will be restricted affordable, and the china basin park is a major open space in phase one. The project has a number of elements that you can read on the slide here that we can talk about if you would like to in the future. The motion before you is on the specifically they come along with the final map. They would have come along on june 2nd, but this trailed a bit due to timing. So its before the committee today. There are six streets total at the site. We are proposing that four be extensions of the nearby street grid. You can see that on the far right. We would extend this from the south and it would terminate at that beautiful park in the north end of the site. Lawn bridge, bridge view and not ha he will would be extensions. Long bridge and bridge view would come up bridge view would come up north. Long bridge would come from the east and channel street would come in im sorry. My directions are off from the west. There are two new names proposed at the site. One is blank road, this blue street, and the other is spur street. The two names are back to the site history. Spur makes reference to the site as a long time rail yard dating back to the late 1800s. You can see the picture of the spurs and the rail yards. Plank road is an homage to mission plank road which was a toll road that operated in San Francisco from about 1851 and connected parts of mission bay over to mission delores. The process for naming new streets that weve gone through just briefly noted here, it began in Community Meetings back in 2019 when we were discussing what different public space features should be. During those Community Meetings, we heard names that should reference the sites history. We proposed three names to make sure spur, plank, and the extensions were fine through emergency standpoint. They were compliant. Then we presented the names to our advisory groups back in december. The Port Commission had a hearing on the street names and adopted or proposed we bring these to the board in january, and were now seeking that approval from the board. The motion before you is for the six names, four extensions, two new street names, and i think we have folks available from vsm, mr. James ryan and bruce torres may be able to answer questions about process. Im here for any questions you may have. Thank you. Are there any questions from Committee Members . Yes, supervisor preston. Thank you, chair peskin. In this moment where street names and other things are very much on our mind, were taking a close look at various names in our district of street names, and i realize this process started quite a while ago, but i am curious, especially with the new streets, not the extension streets, but with the new ones, theres obviously a lot of interest in naming streets after civil rights leaders, other activists and folks. We are in the process tomorrow of bringing back before the board of gauge junior resolution to name the street after the first africanamerican firefighter. There are many more folks who have been underrecognized or not recognized. Yet, i realize you are well into this process. So i wanted to understand just what is there an opportunity potentially on the new ones, particularly on plank and spur . If there were alternatives, would there be a way to potentially consider other names on those without slowing down the many other aspects of this project . Thank you, supervisor, for the question. Im sure that our Port Commission executive director appreciates what youre talking about. The sentiments are well discussed. As i mentioned, the process weve gone through to come up with different names, we go through that process again. There would be some concern there with regard to timing. Our real mandate from wanting to get this project started is to Start Construction in july and then we would be starting the vertical construction in september, october. So perhaps i could defer to the City Attorney as to whether or not this sort of integration of a new process starting issuing with permits and starting construction on those buildings, if thats appropriate. Deputy City Attorney jensen. Good afternoon, chair, and Board Members. I have been informed by my colleague and the City Attorneys office that there would be no slowing down of construction if the committee and the board do not push through this item right now, that the construction can continue on its current track. So that is my understanding. So subject to Public Comment, supervisor preston, how would you feel if we continued this item to the call of the chair while we Work Together with the port and the port works with the project sponsor and the various committees and folks that you had vetted this idea with. Supervisor preston, that would work well for me. Potentially, continuance of however much time it needed for those discussions. Im throwing that out to you for your response and thoughts. Okay. Wonderful. My thoughts are a couple. We have other streets at the port we might want to do a quick survey of potential future projects if that is of interest to supervisor preston and others. So perhaps we could provide that information and have a discussion and figure out whether or not there are other opportunities. The only concern with these is that going back through the process. I understand if that may be the desire. Perhaps a broader look at port streets is a good way to provide information. Sorry. Go ahead. My apologies. No. Go ahead, chair. I was just going to say that we could also potentially and im looking at the verbiage in the subject resolution, maybe approve this in bart without spur or plank, but with the extensions of the existing named streets. So maybe that would allow you to go forward in part, and then the other two new ones could be part of the more global look that youre suggesting. Thats a potentially good route. Those streets intersect the first phase of instruction. We would have to get to those in the nearer term. We have other projects. I think this global look would actually be a Good Opportunity to look at what streets are coming before the board in the near term as well that hasnt gone through the process just yet. Thank you for your willingness to have that conversation, and i think it would make sense to separate out the new ones. Approve the ones that are extensions and then maybe it would give more time limited so we can have that conversation about the broader look at names and then it may well be that these particular ones should just move forward as is and there are other opportunities that these should be rethought out. I apologize. We raised this just initially just today, so i think in a period of time we should have that conversation. That works very well for me. Thank you. Anything you would like to add or subtract . Yes. I have my name on the roster. Thank you, chair. So i was going to Say Something similar to what both of you all said. I think we should definitely move forward with the names that are extensions of the existing streets. I think theres no debate there. I think it makes sense to have a conversation if theres other projects upcoming or other projects to name new streets. I think this would be the time to have looking through an equity lens. I do think that, you know, when i look at what the port what the port has presented in terms of the reason why they chose spur and plank, theres some history there, but its not anything really of super significance. I think that since this is a mission rock, this is a San Francisco giants, i think it will be worthwhile to include them in the conversation and see if there is some historic athletes or current athletes that we could incorporate in. I know if i lived in that area, it would be pretty wonderful to have someone that had significant history with the team but also with a homage to where we are today in terms of our africanamerican history or other history, you know, in terms of the commitment from the team and the name. So i would definitely like to see that. But i certainly would like to see that the current streets that are not up for di for debas straightforward. I think people know that he was the first africanamerican supervisor of the board, and i think thats a wonderful history to kind of, again, reaffirm. Those are my comments. Thank you, supervisor safai. Before we go to Public Comment, deputy City Attorney jensen, as im looking at the subject resolution, all of the names are set forth in the public streets and port open spaces lift. So i think if we were to move forward in part and remove plank and spur, that lift would have to be amended or we would have to add another moved clause that specifically deletes those two names. What is your advice . I think probably the cleanest way to do it would be through an amendment, but its not your only path. You could i suppose you could split the file, but it seems like a great amendment would work just as well. I think i cut off the port representative. Thank you, supervisor peskin. Im getting notes from staff that it may create some confusion to take half the legislation. So if it would be possible through the chair, can we continue the item and not try to split it up . Im hearing this might cause confusion with some of our permitting and whatnot. Okay. We can certainly do that. Supervisor preston, it looks like you wanted to Say Something. Nope. Okay. Why dont we open this up to Public Comment. Are there members of the public who would like to comment. Checking to see if there are any callers in i in the queue. Press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. Mr. Chair, there are no callers in the queue. Okay. Public comment is closed. Why dont we sorry. Im sorry. One second. One caller just popped up. All right. Then well open it up to Public Comment. My name is hello. Go ahead. I dont know how to push unmute it. Youve been unmuted. Okay. My name is bill graziano. I live in the bayview. We have a street called bridge view. So im wondering if there will be some confusion. I notice that it said bridge view way, but bridge view street is in the bayview. So its just a comment. Thats a helpful comment. Thank you, sir, for the comment. Are there any other callers . That completes the queue. We will close Public Comment. We can i can schedule this on any thursday by 10 00 in the morning for the following monday. So what i would suggest is that we continue this to the call of the chair so that we dont put it on multiple agendas. When we have figured this out to everybodys satisfaction, i think we all know what were doing here, plus we just got a very helpful comment that may not have you may not have heard before from the member of the public. If theres no objection, i would like to make a motion to continue item number three to the call of the chair, and on that motion, a roll call, please, madam clerk. Only the motion as stated. [ roll call ] okay. That motion is approved. Item is continued to the call of the chair. I look forward to working with you and, of course, feel free to work directly with my colleagues as well. With that, the land use and Transportation Committee is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you all. Good afternoon. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the june 19, 2020 special meeting of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services committee. I am vice chair of the committee joined by supervisor walton and safai appointed in place of supervisor mandelman for today. I would like to thank sfgovtv and the board of supervisors operations for lending support. Thank you, madam vice chair to protect Board Members. The chamber and Committee Room are close. This is pursuant be to all various local, state and federal orders and declarations. Committee members will participate to the same as if physically present. Public comment is available for each item. Both San Francisco cable channel 26 and sfgovtv are streaming the calling number on the screen. Comments or opportunities to speak are available via phone by 415 6550001. Once connected and prompted enter the id for today. 145 1872784. After you dialed that number press pound and. Again to be connected. When connected you will hear the discussions but you will be muted in a listening need. When your item comes up dial star followed by 3 to be added to the speaker line. Best practices call from a quiet location speak clearly and slowly and turndown your television or radio or streaming device. Account for time delay. You may submit Public Comment by emailing me, the clerk of Public Safety and Neighborhood Services committee. John. Carroll at sfgovtv. If you submit Public Comment by email it will be in the file as part of the matter. Your written comments may be sent by u. S. Postal service to our office in city hall. 1 doctor Carleton Place room 244 San Francisco 94102. Items today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda june stated. Thank you. Chairman delman is not here. I will make a motion to excuse chairman delman. On the motion to excuse mandelman member walton. Aye. Safai. Aye. Stefani. Aye. Madam, vice chair, there are three ayes. Please call the first item. Resolution urging the Civil Service commission to adopt rules to disqualify to the uniformed ranks of the Police Department and Sheriff Office based on prior acts of misconduct. Members to comment should call the Public Comment number. 415 6550001, enter i id1451872784. Press pound twice to connect to the meeting. Press star followed by 3 to enter the queue to speak. I am in receipt of a memo from chairman delman asking this to be a Committee Report for the june 23rd board of supervisors meeting. Thank you. Supervisor walton, this is your item. The floor is yours. Thank you so much, chair stefani. And thank you supervisor safai to have this meeting. Happy juneteenth. Thank you for celebrating at this time for our community. I hope the District Attorney will have joined us for Public Comment and then we will come back and have conversations about the resolution we are presented with. I will start by framing the context. We are here at a turning point in history, a time for change has come. We have waited far too long and now is the time to make changes to our institution. The institution of Law Enforcement has been racist over years. The way it was formed was racism and has continued throughout the years. A recent rise in police shootings, coverage of fights in jails instigated by Law Enforcement staff. We will not continue to allow racism and acts of violence and crime by our Law Enforcement to grow in San Francisco. When i first took office the main calls i received were from the community. I was a black man, only black representative of the board of supervisors, which meant many black Community Members called my office. How they have been treated by the people paid and sworn to protect them, they talked about treatment and injustices. I could hear the anger. But more importantly what i heard was the hurt. The systematic failure and mistrust of Law Enforcement meant to protect them. It goes on and on and would take hours to share the stories of mistreatment and many cases repeated from some of the officers in our ranks. That is why my first few meetings here were with the department of Police Accountability. While my office is committing to moving towards sheriff oversight and Police Accountability. Why are we here today . This is not just due to one incident. There have been several incidents in the city and a cross this country that got us to the point where we need to make sure that we dont have officers on our streets and in our communities that have allegations and proven misconduct, proven extensive force and racial profiles. Monday, may 25th, the officer applied his knee to the neck of an unarmed black man named george floyd for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, that is clos close 9 minutes. That led to his death on the scene. That officer had no concern for the life of george floyd and recklessly killed him with no signs every morse or compassion. This is not the first time we have witnessed Law Enforcement killing a black man or someone defenseless before our eyes. This happened between Law Enforcement and black and brown men and people of color before. The officer who killed george floyd had a dozen complaints of misconduct. This allowing this individual to remain in Law Enforcement led to the death sentence for george floyd. On june 2 of this year the District Attorney and my colleagues supervisor yee, fewer, rainy, marand i introduced the resolution urging the Civil Service commission to adopt rules to disqualify any applicant for employment in the Police Department and the Sheriffs Department based on prior acts of misconduct. There is no way that we should ever have a situation in San Francisco where we hire someone that has worked in another city with complaints of Excessive Force, misconduct, available profiling and anything that demonstrates prejudice and violent behavior. Our Civil Service Commission Must make sure this policy is written and explicit and state that we will not hire these individuals within any of the San Francisco Law Enforcement body. We are tired of unjusttises in the community. We do not need racist people picking off people of color at will. There are laws at the state level to make it hard to receive the needed transparency to ensure we dont have these officers in our department, and we will continue to advocate to make sure those changes also come into fruition. The resolution urges the Civil Service commission to disqualify any applicant for employment in the uniform ranks of the San Francisco Police Department or Sheriffs Department if the applicant has been the subject of sustained finding or two unsustained complaints by different complainant by any agency. Following investigation and opportunity for administrative appeal by the applicant, if the applicant while employed as a Police Officer engaged in serious misconduct including but not limited to the following use of Excessive Force, racial bias, sexual assault. Discrimination based on race or gender, religion, nationality or Sexual Orientation or dishonesty directly relating to reporting, investigation or prosecution of a rhyme or directly relating to report of or investigation of misconduct by another peace officer or custodial officer. 2. Ththe applicant resigned or retired from employment as a peace officer in any jurisdiction during the pendency of this Disciplinary Proceedings to alleged serious misconduct by the applicant while employed as a peace officer and the proceeding was suspended or terminated as a result of the applicants resignation or retirement until such time the applicant has been exonerated for pending allegations. What we are doing here is basically fighting to make sure that we have rules through our Civil Service commission to explicitly state we will not hire individuals in these categories and that have caused harm in other communities and do not belong in Law Enforcement here in San Francisco. I believe the District Attorney has joined us, and i will pass the floor over to you, District Attorney. Thank you, supervisor walton. I did hear your remarks. I thank you for your leadership and courage on this important issue. I appreciate the opportunity to partner with you in calling for this much needed and long overdue change and introducing the proposed resolution. I want to thank all supervisors for joining as cosponsors i i want to thank supervisor safai. Walton i had that conversation. I dont think it was transferred to the clerk. If you can make a note i cosponsor this as well. I appreciate that supervisor safai. I understood you indicated early support. We value and appreciate your joining as a cosponsor. I am glad we are able to make that change. I want to thank the Youth Commission for issuing their own resolution in support and joining this resolution before the board. As supervisor walton mentioned this is juneteenth, the end of slavery in this country. We must remember the work remains ahead of us. This is not just a historic problem, celebration of problem a century ago. It is work we have to do in our government, in our city, in our community, in our family, in our heart every single day to obtain racial justice, especially for the black community i am proud to present th the the floyd resn to protect our community and ensure the Tragic Police brutality that caused the murder of george floyd does not happen again, at least not in San Francisco. We have to take this action. We have to take it in this time, in the moment of great pain in our country and in our streets as we grieve and feel anger at the long standing and repeated instances of Police Violence especially towards black men and people of color. Our hope that the resolution and the action it urges the Civil Service commission to take it will build trust in the Law Enforcement officers here to protect us. Ththe resolution prohibits the n francisco Police Department and Sheriffs Office from hiring with a known history of serious misconduct. It would disqualify applicants who want to serve in uniform and carry guns and badges on our streets if they have previously suffered findings of serious misconduct such as Excessive Force, racial bias, discrimination or dishonesty under oates. It would disqualify an officer who leaves their prior job or retires from another agency while being investigated for any of the abovementioned categories. That is an important effort to close a loop poll whereby Law Enforcement personnel being investigated for serious misconduct and expecting it will result in discipline leave employment in order to defeat the process to avoid a discipline record. We do not want people who refuse to cooperate with discipline investigations to work and carry guns on our streets. The resolution that we are introduces is in honor of george floyd. We hope had a similar policy been in place he might be alive today. Remember the officer who sat on George Floyds neck for nearly nine painful minutes while haustrastruggled to breathe andd his mother. That officer had 18 prior complaints and was involved in multiple prior officer involved shootings. We hope the board will adopt this resolution and Civil Service commission will take appropriate action to ensure there is never another George Floyd Murder at the hands of police. Some may ask why is this necessary . Isnt that is policy . Isnt that the practice . I want to be very clear. California law makes it hard and sometimes impossible to gain access to information. Even from within the office i run, office of the District Attorney, about prior misconduct committed by Law Enforcement personnel. This policy if adopted by the Civil Service commission will ensure even when the public cant have access to the information it deserves that the public is guaranteed the San Francisco Law Enforcement personnel have a pristine discipline record. When they call to the scene of emergency they are dealing with people with no misconduct finding for Racial Discrimination or sexual assault. We must tap the adversity of George Floyds death, of the death of other unnecessary losses of life at the hands of Law Enforcements and tu turn ito a opportunity for change and go towards system of justice that better values healing. Resources to the tools essential to building lasting Public Safety. Police accountability and transparency are critical for Public Safety and critical for trust and building integrity in the justice system. I want to thank you again for your time and allowing me to speak today. I want to acknowledge supervisor walton for his leadership and partnership on this issue. I am happy to take take any ques the committee may have. I do want to thank you for your leadership on this. For bringing this to our office. This is a very important resolution. As you stated we are urging the Civil Service commission to step up to do the right thing. Our hope is that we can avoid a Charter Amendment and putting this on a future ballot. We missed the timeline, that is why this is coming in the form of resolution. We are going to push hard to make sure the Civil Service commission does the right thing for this policy. I do again want to acknowledge supervisor safai was an early supportter of the resolution. My apologies for missing your name in the opening statement. I would love to open it up for colleagues to make a statement at this point. Thank you, supervisor walton. I just want to basically state this is an absolute nobrainer. I thank you so much for your leadership. I definitely want to add my name as cosponsor. This is a nobrainer and should be policy now. I want to do everything i can to help support it. Thank you, supervisor walton and for my colleagues who joined you early on. I dont believe you and i have had an opportunity to have a conversation about this. I support this. I want to be added as cosponsor. President safai. I appreciate supervisor walton and our District Attorney for really stepping up on this. I think that when we are thinking about the history and the interactions with the community, we have to look at all of the different racial injustice, we have to look at the pressure points that have been a source of concern. You know, we had a conversation that we are starting supervisor walton and i about recruitment and hiring practices within first responders. The mayor made an announcement yesterday. We have to look at all different avenues as to why we have these incidents. I understand that being a Police Officer is extremely stressful job, but being a black man in america or africanamerican in america is stressful given the history and interactions and results of those interactions. I agree with your comments, supervisor stefani. This is long overdue. Even if it seems to be a current practice, we need to be out in front of this and we need to ensure that people understand. I want to an acknowledge our attorney general talked about looking at dessert fi decertifying individuals with a history of misconduct or serious misconduct action against them. That is another step to look at Police Accountability. This to me on this historic day is so important. People talk about symbolism and action. This is real action. I just want to thank you both for your leadership. I am proud to be an early supporter of this legislation. Thank you. Thank you so much, supervisor stefani and safai. We appreciate your leadership on this as well. That puts us to 10 members of the board of supervisors that have guaranteed and cosponsored with support. We are now ready to open for Public Comment. John, can you let us know if we have anybody in the queue . Yes. Operations will check to see if there are callers. Please let us know if callers are ready if you have connected via phone suppress far and three to be oo press star and wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. The system will prompt you to tell you your microphone is unmuted. On cable channel 26 or through sfgovtv if you wish to speak, please call in by following instructions on your screen. 415 6550001. Enter meeting id1451872784. Press pound twice and star and three to enter the queue to speak. Do we have speakers . Yes, i have three callers. I will unmute the first caller. Thank you. Before we go to the first caller a few things about Public Comment. Speakers have two comments. State your first and last name and speak directly to the phone. Those prepared written statements send a copy to the clerk for the file. Speakers are encouraged to avoid repetition of previous statements. First caller, please. I am a citizen and Voting Member in San Francisco. Thank you so much for working towards better social justice reform. One thing that was said this move would ensure we never see this behavior again. Someone else on the call said or supervisor member said that it is nobrainer. It is nobrainer because it is an easy and low cost solution to a problem without easy and simple and io cost solutions. Given the comment action isnt a small step. It is important. It is a small step that is treated like a big step which worries me. The big steps will faceless support when people say didnt we solve this already . We are not hiring people like them. Anyone with a action after this point doesnt have prior misconduct so there is not an issue. We are not going to support new measures to restrict the police further. My hope is that we can take a first move that is big, remove funding or suggest increasing restrictions on Police Actions or decrease for areas where police shouldnt be involved at all and are today. My concern that this is nice and important, because it doesnt come with big hard steps that arent nobrainers, that are controversial we are going to lose out on the controversial stuff that we need to push for from in commission and from others. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Caller i am maim neclausener, white 35 year resident of San Francisco involved in Police Account ability for five years. I want to say it is time now to fully defund the Police Department and use those funds in ways that will actually keep our community safe. That may have sounded radical about a month ago. There are now thousands of people in the streets of San Francisco and millions around the country that are calling for just that, police abolition. That said, the resolution before you is long overdue. I applaud supervisors walton and safai for trying to reform to help reduce number of sfpd officers likely to murder and terrorize my black and Brown Brothers and sister. If adopted as policy it will block the hires of officers such as joshua who murdered a 14 yearold boy in 2012. In 2016 he went on to shoot a man in the back in north beach. He has used Excessive Force on many people in the mission and other places. No surprise. No surprise at all. I feel strongly, however, the resolution should include a grandfather clause to fire any current sfpd officer who had a sustained finding or two unsustained findings of major misconduct in another jurisdiction. Keeping the officers is going to lead to more violence by the cops. There are too many current sfpd cops to commit violence again. The resolution is good but it just doesnt go far enough. I would like to say as somebody who does Public Comment that i think during Public Comment i should be able to see the commissioners or the board of supervisors. Your time expired. Next speaker, please. That completes the queue. Th thank you. Thank you so much for all your Public Comment. I do want to say thank you to all of the folks and the community who have been working with us not only on this policy but other reforms so we can get true justice for communities of color, for black people and can go to a place where people can feel safe walking in communities, driving and being in the community and not harassed or mistreated by the very people we are working to make sure protect us in our communities. With that said, colleagues do we have questions or statements at this point . Then i would like to make a motion to file this as a Committee Report and forward to the board of supervisors for a vote on june 23rd. Committee report for the 23rd . Correct. Hearing that motion mr. Clerk please call the roll. June 23rd boyd of supervisors meeting walton. Aye. Safai. Aye. Vice chair stefani. Aye. Madam vice chair, three ayes. Then the motion passes. Mr. Clerk any more items before us today . There is no further business. Thank you. Thanks everybody. Happy juneteenth. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone. Thank you, supervisor walton. Good morning. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the thursday, june 18th meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. Thank you to this committees clerk, john carol and thank you to sfgovtv for staffing this remote meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements . In order to protect Board Members during the Health Emergency the board of supervisors legislative chamber and Committee Room are closed. This is taken pursuant to various local, state and federal orders and directives. Committee members attend through video and participate to the same extent as if physically present. While the comments will be available for each item. Cable 26 and sfgovtv are streaming the call in number across the screen. Comments and opportunities to speak are available at 415 6550001. Once connected and prompted to the access code which is 145 4314683. Then press pound and press pound a second time to be connected to the meeting. When connected you will hear the discussions. You will be muted and in a listening mode. When your item of interest comes up, dial star three to be added to the speaker line. Call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turndown your television, radio or streaming device. Everyone must account for time delays between the live meeting and the streaming coverage. You may submit Public Comment in the following ways. Email me, the clerk of the government audit and oversight committee. Joh nca rroll at sfgov. Org. You will be included in the legislative file as part of the matter. Your written comments may be sept bsent by u. S. Post office. Items acted upon today will apbe on the june 30, 2020 agenda unless otherwise stated. Please call items, one, two, three, four. 1 through 4 ordinance fixing compensation for persons employed by the city and county whose compensation is subject to charter a8. 409 in job codes not represented by an employee organization. The First Amendment memorandum of understanding between the city and county and teamsters 856 to provide appropriate differential over subordinate classifications and onetime payment to employees in classification 2496. Imaging supervisor. First p the First Amendment to the 20192022 memorandum of understanding to provide onetime payment to include a firearms instructor premium and ordinance for the memorandum of understanding between the city and county. Miscellaneous to update night shift differential and include onetime payment to employees in specified classifications. Members of the public wishing to comment on these items call the public number and enter the access code 145 4314683. Press pound twice to connect and press star followed by 3 to speak. Mr. Chair, i am in receipt of a memo requesting these four be considered as Committee Reports for consideration by the board of supervisors early on the jun. Mr. Chair. Than thank you, mr. Clerk. Welcome carol from the department of Human Resources to present these items. Thank you, mr. Chair, members of the committee. These four items in front of you, one of them is a byproduct of 2019 negotiations that was put into a separate process, that being the firearms premium agreed upon between the supervising probation officers of the city. This is a premium paid while performing the duties of firearms instructor which happens periodically in that group. There are two items. Teamsters item and the Service Employees International Union local 1001 item that are byproducts every classification of the radiology series. That provides services at zuckerberg General Hospital and elsewhere. The study was i was implemente. We have two clerical amendments to adjust the rate of the supervisor of the classifications to deal with an item left out which is the swing and night shift differentials for these classifications. The unrepresented ordinance. No new additional spending in the ordinance. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Than thank you for all your k on these m. O. U. S. Before we go to Public Comment, colleagues any questions or comments . Seeing none, why dont we go to Public Comment on these items. Operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. Please let us know if they are ready press star and three to be added t to the queue. Wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. On cable 26 or sfgovtv call in by the instructions on the screen by dialing 415 6550001. Enter 145 4314683pound twice and star three to be added to the queue. Do we have any callers . We do not have any callers in the queue for these items. Thank you, operations. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Hearing no callers on Public Comment is now closed. I would like to move to recommend these items as Committee Report for the june 23rd meeting of the board of supervisors. Mr. Clerk please call the roll. The motion that these be forwarded as Committee Reports vice chair peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk please call items 5 and 6 together. Two resolution authorizing the mayor to cast assessment ballots in the affirmative to the proposed renewal and expansion of property and business improvements district to be named the Castro Community benefit district with respect to certain parcels of Real Property owned by the city subject to assessment in the district. Members of the public call 415 6550001. Enter access code 145 4314683. Press pound twice to connect to the meeting. Then the star key followed by 3 to enter the queue to speak. These are on the agenda as Committee Reports. Welcome chris from the office of economic and Work Force Development to present. Good morning. Thank you for hearing these items today. I am the Senior Program manager. Today i am here presenting two resolutions authorizing the mayor to cast a ballot for the City Property based district Castro Community benefit district and the same for the Fishermans Wharf cbd. On may 29th the department of elections mailed ballots to Property Owners in the cbds. Initially, on may 29 one ballot was sent for the Fishermans Wharf and six to the city of county for the castro cbd. Within the past 36 hours we received information that was confirmed two parcels in the castro have been purchased and are owned by the city and county of San Francisco. We recommend including these in the resolutions. First would be parcel 3501006, for 1,008. 08. 116 of the budget at 1939 market. 3501007. 1,039. 55. That is. 127 of the cbd budget. The new total for the city owned parcels in the cbd 74,211. 99 or 9. 051 of the total cbd budget. This proposed amendment would have on page 2 line 11 for item 5 the number 6 become 8. The table page 3 line one add two row one for each parcel. With the corresponding information and the total online 16 for item 5 should be updated to 74,211. 99. Percentage should be updated to 9. 051 . For the Fisherman Wharf cbd the one parcel is 5,868. 67,. 848 of the total assessment budget. If the board passes these the city can vote in both elections. We both elections. We will answer questions from the committee. Thank you very much. Colleagues questions or comments . A clarifying clerical question. I may have missed it you are can requesting to five and six to add parcels. No, just agenda item 5. I wanted to at that i did receive a request from supervisor mandelman whose district includes cass pro benefit district Castro District that we move the amendment that was verbally presented today. Mr. Clerk maybe we could go to Public Comment. Any callers on the line . Mr. Chair, operations will check for callers in the queue. For those connected to the meeting please press star and three to be added to the queue to speak. If you are on hold continue to wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. If you are watching on 26 or through sfgovtv, if you wish to speak please call in by following the instructions on your screen. 415 6550001 and enter 145 4314683. Press pound twice and star followed by three to enter the queue to speak. Any callers on this item . Yes, i have one caller in the queue. Thank you. You have two minutes. Caller the item on the reemployment ordinance. Right now we are on agenda items 5 and sixty the government oversight and audit to authorize the mayor to cast ballots in the affirmative for proposed cbd formations in districts in the castro and fishermens wharf. Are these items you are calling on . Caller i will pass for now in the queue. You are referring to item 8 that is coming up. Any other callers . Thank you very much. Thank you, operations. Hearing no further callers, Public Comment is now closed. I would like to move that we accept the amendment to item 5 that was verbally presented. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. On the motion to amend offered by supervisor mar to add additional parcels to agenda item 5, peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes. Thank you, mr. Clerk. I would like to move to recommend item 5 as amended and item 6 as Committee Reports for the june 23rd meeting of the board of supervisors. On this motion mr. Clerk please call the roll. On the motion offered by chair mar. Vice chair peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call item 7. Resolution urging the department of Public Health to work with the office of the chief medical examiner to conduct epidemiological post motemcovid19 testing and Contract Tracing of deceased San Francisco residents and urging the office to conduct surveillance swabbing of all decedentses to properly identify and certify deaths from the covid19 virus and monitor community spread. If you wish to call on this, please call the Public Comment number and enter 145 1314683. Press pound twice on to connect and star and three to speak. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Supervisor peskin, the floor is yours. Thank you, chair marand supervisor haney and thank you to doctor Susan Phillip and michelle rip be from the office of the chief medical examiner who are joining us in this virtual meeting. I want be to thank them for working with my office. I do have amendments to suggest. This was brought to me through my former colleague david chu who indicated this type of surveillance swabbing of deceased individuals under the corner of al lameadda county has been going on for some time early in the covid19 pandemic and i contacted the Coroners Office pathologist in that county and came up with this piece of legislation that is before us. I have some suggested changes but i would like to start by introducing duketor sues wa r comments. Thank you, supervisor peskin and mr. Chair and to the committee for the invitation. Yes, the purpose of this resolution is something that we feel is very important at the department of Public Health. The intent is to ensure we understand all of the epidemiology of people deceased in San Francisco related to covid19. This is important for a couple of reasons. First and foremost we want to make sure we can ensure Occupational Health and safety for people working to revive or care for an individual at the time of their death. We want to do Contact Tracing with household members, and we want to understand the epidemiology of covid19 in San Francisco n as well as we can for public response. We believe testing in this fashion is very useful. To that end, we in San Francisco have been doing that in collaboration between the department of Public Health and the office of chief medical examiner since early march. When we were having difficulty in securing our supplies we prioritized testing persons that were being evaluated at the office of the chief medical examiner for these very reasons. We have done that informally sincerly march and formalized that process by providing the testing kits since then. There are a broader range of entities that may come into contact with these descents. We are working on a health order to be sure we have a broad net to allow th the testing and understand the implications of the testing. I appreciate the thought behind the resolution and very much agree with the importance of it. Doctor, phillips, i know my former colleague katie tang on loan from the airport to the department of Public Health or the Emergency Operations center did suggest some changes last evening which i am happy to go through with you because of the compressed time. I have not had a time to get back to katie tang or to you about that. I am happy to go through the three suggested changes and get your thoughts. I think she suggested that on page 2 lines 9 through 17 be stricken. I might have some arguments as to why i would push back on that. I would love to hear your thoughts on that. The portion of lines 9 through 13 really says that we at dph do not will not about testing tools not approved by the food and drug administration. We strongly suggested that that laboratories including ours use testing for covid19 that has been authorized under an emergency use authorization by either the cdc or fda. In the early days there were a lot of players in the market for testing. We needed reliable information. There were important Public Health actions following out of testing. There are reputestable laboratories that have the ability under regulations to do their own validation of testing. Some of our academic partners have done that to good effect. It is not a hard and fast rule, but our general guideline is to mostly want to promote the tests that have been review by fda for the reasons stated. That would be for my suggestion for lines 9 to 13. For lines 14 to 17, should i read those or comment on them . As you like. I am sure before all three members of the committee as the medical offices have begun surveillance swabbing of the deceased individuals which is easy to administer. I lost it. It is a process to contribute to the states efforts. Suggest not to strike but acknowledge. We have done this in San Francisco working closely between the office of chief medical examiner and dph. San francisco could be added to the list as well. I now understand what katie was asking. The only question is that my understanding is the swabbing of deceased individuals that commenced in early march by San Francisco was not for all des see debts but ones with respiratory issues that could potentially be covid19 positive . That was according to the cdc guidance for testing which is not yet expanded to all deceased but it says if the office has reasonable to believe there was a respiratory condition prior to death or concern it might be. There is quite a bit of leeway there. It is based on the medical and expert judgment of the persons in the office of the chief medical examiner, correct. The only reason i am bringing that up is because and i am not a doctor as you well know. My understanding is that surveillance swabbing by definition would be everybody. For a random sample but not surveillance if you are only testing deceased who showed covid19 symptoms . Is that fair . That is correct. We started with a more focused effort to test deceased. Then with this health order in development and that we are working with stakeholders on we would move more toward the true surveillance effort of all people who die in San Francisco. I mean i think this is a minor issue. Given that and given my understanding about the ore abor offices where we are doing true surveillance swabbing as described to me, i would be inclined for accuracy to keep San Francisco off that list. I acknowledge and appreciate the fact we have been doing targeted deceased testing since early march. Yes, what i would say what we are proposed with this health order under development we go beyond what is done in many of the entities. I would need to look at each of them. It would go beyond the cases handled by the office of the chef medical examiner. We try to be more broad. That is getting at your intent to have a true surveillance citywide of all deceased. Page 3 lines 9 through 11. Page 3 lines 9 through 11, this was the ask to go back and do retrospective analysis and comparison of cases that may have occurred or really looking back to do in depth evaluation of people who may have died to see if there could have been covid19 in San Francisco prior to the first cases detected here on march 5th or announced on march 5th. What we suggested is that there is such a continued need for improvement in the way we do our ongoing Immediate Health response based on what we know, including increased testing we are planning moving forward of descents and following up. This is important to know from an overall understanding, but it will have limited impact on our policy or immediate action. What we are suggesting is could there be a clause that says as resources allow we will do the evaluation when we truly may have been seeing initial cases in San Francisco but not to devote a lot of limited Department Resources to doing that at the moment. I think there are two paragraphs here that are at issue. One is the last clause in paragraph that starts out Health Officials have warned. Getting rid of and i dont understand why we would want to i dont want to quibble in order to have reliable accurate data Public Officials and policymakers can utilize to manage this National Emergency and its local impacts. I am not sure why we want to take that out. That is hooked to the next paragraph. Depending upon sufficient resources. I would say this is a resolution urging. It is not an ordinance. In april of itself a statement of in april of itself it is the a policy. Short of an ordinance it is implicit in what we are saying. I would be reluctant to add those words. I understand your Human Resource constraints, and i understand relative to physical constraints, labs and lab testing, those are not issues. Certainly Human Resource constraints are an issue. I understand that and respect that. In so far as a resolution urging, i would not be inclined to take those two amendments respectfully. You can push back on me and the committee and we can hear from ms. Rippey. I understand. Thank you. I think i dont have a strong push back except to say that i am talking from a Public Health perspective, i dont know that having that information would drastically change what we want to do to protect the public now and moving forward. I think that the focus on really identifying and understanding the issues of the outcomes, infections, deaths are the areas that i want our teams to focus on moving forward. I agree with you this is Important Information to have. We are of the same mind of getting the information so we have a fuller picture of what is going on. Thank you, doctor. Ms. Rip be anything to add or subtract on behalf of the office of the chief medical examiner. The office of the chief medical examiner and the acting chief medical examiner completely support all of these efforts. We have been working closely with the department of Public Health and with their continued supplies and resources we will be able to enact this proposal as it is written. Thank you, ms. Rippey. Subject to Public Comment i would like to take the suggested delation on page 2 of lines 9 through 13 and then at line 15 change the word has to have, and then make those changes after Public Comment and send the items to the full board with memes if that with recommendation if that is the will of the committee. Thank you. Why dont we go to Public Comment. Mr. Clerk any callers on the line . We will check to see if there are callers. Please let us know if callers are ready for those that connected via phone press star and three to be added to speak. In the hold wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. On cable channel 26 or streaming or through sfgovtv if you wish to speak call in by following instructions on your screen. 415 6550001. Enter 145 4314683. Press pound twice and star and three to speak. Do we have any speakers for agenda item 7 . Yes, i have one caller in the queue. You have two minutes. It appears the caller has hung up. No callers in the queue. Thank you, operations and mr. Hearing no further callers, Public Comment is now closed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. While we have the me office and doctor phillip on the line, i want to ask if they could comment on relative to the swabbing and surveillance that has been done whether there is any data on that that they can report to this committee. Supervisor, i do not have those data in front of me at the moment. I apologize for that. I will send those information and that data to your office and the committee through the clerk to share. Thank you, doctor. From the me office we have had three that were analyzed. Thank you. What was the test . How many tests were administered administered . I dont have the exact number. I can make sure that gets forwarded to you. Thank you, ms. Rippey. Supervisor peskin a motion . Yes, i would move as previously stated that on page 2 lines 9 through 13 be stricken and on page 2 at line 15 the word has be replaced with have and then with those items to the full board with positive recommendation. Mr. Clerk please call the roll. On the motion that the resolution be amended on page 2 and then recommended as amended to the board of supervisors, vice chair peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes, mr. Chair. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Can you please call item number 8. Emergency ordinance temporary creating a right to reemployment for certain employees laid off due to the covid19 pandemic if the employer seeks to fill the same position previously held by the laidoff worker or substantially similar position as defined. Members of the public call the Public Comment number. Enter the access code, press pound twice to connect to the meeting. Then press star followed by three to enter the queue to speak. Once again, mr. Chair. I am in receipt from your memo asking this to be on the agenda as a Committee Report. The back to work emergency ordinance is before us today. As we grapple with the covid19 crisis there is a related crisis going. Over 100,000 in San Francisco filed for unemployment since the state of emergency, this, too, is now a state of emergency for laid off workers. The scope of Unemployment Crisis is greater than any since the Great Depression representing hundreds of thousands of livelihoods and families in economic uncertainty. This crisis is not unique to San Francisco. We are uniquely positioned to lead in addressing it. This is a union town. A city that has long held the rights of workers to fair treatment and terms of employment. That is a city unafraid to be bold and carry the torch for workers and new trails for Economic Justice and fairness. This ordinance is bold. We must be bold to address the Unemployment Crisis. This is novel because the circumstances we face are novel. This is urgent because this crisis is urgent. This is based on a clear simple idea. If you are laid off in an emergency if and when your job becomes available again it should be offered to you before a new applicant. Covid19 is a crisis for workers and businesses alike. The cover of the crisis should not be used to treat workers unfairly, replace long time and senior employees with younger or cheaper alternatives. We know most employers will bring back workers laid off before considering new applicants. This ordinance makes this a requirement for all covered employers. This is about fairness in doing what is right and not a new idea. The right to recall for laid off workers is in all collective Bargaining Agreements. What is new the conviction it be extended to unrepresented workers to weather the storm. We know this is right and just. We know as groundbreaking law it is important that we get the details right. It has taken time to bring the back to work ordinance forward to the committee. We have taken this time to work with stakeholders from the business and lane borcommunity labor communities to make this the best it can be. I will be proposed a number of amendments. Before that we want to offer some of the context this ordinance is being considered under. We will hear from two presenters today. First josh, the director of Workforce Development at eewd sharing updates. Katie, staff attorney for legal aid at work presenting on the impact unemployment has on individuals and families. The floor is yours. Thank you, chair mar, supervisors. Good morning. Direct torn of Workforce Development in the economic Work Force Development. Thank you for inviting me to share the information and some of the anecdotes and data that really speak to the crisis and elements of the unemployment situation in our community that you spoke to, supervisor. I am going to share a screen. This is data that i am going to present with respect to our offices receipt of war notices. These are notices that employers of particular size and scale depending on the federal or state requirement, typically 75 or less 75 or more employees at a Company Requires triggers a requirement during layoff to provide notices to the state as well as local jurisdictions. The mayor, president of the board of supervisors and the local Work Force Development board, which is our office. I am going to share this information so you can see what that means in realtime as we track this information. I know the ordinance the supervisor looks at the very first emergency order declared by may or breed february 25th. We will look at data after that date to share. My screen is shared with the committee here this morning. We have set up our tracker to february 25 through the latest date of war notices we process which is the weekending june 5th. We need a week to two weeks to input and update. This is the information current just about to about 12 days ago. From february 25 to june 5, we have received 352 war notices affecting 324 different businesses and the number of affected employees is 38,994. We are able to see some information. You can see the biggest wave of those notices was received the weekending march 30th. 15,309 employees affected by war notices that our office received that week. You can see we log our team worked hard to make sure we have identification of the impacted industries. In the largest sense and we just crossed more than half. It looks around accommodation and food Service Employees most impacted followed by arts and entertainment. That is a lot of the performance related work in the Industries Related to the entertainment that happens in the city and county. It gives you a sense what is happening on the groundout there as we shared with your office. We also keep informationtic to each employer. You will see in most instances the employer indicated these are believed to be temporary layoffs. 29,633 of the 38994 employees. We want to estimate closing on 80 of those employees are impacted on what is believed to be a temporary basis 4600 on permanent basis. For context as well, over the same time span in 2019 from february 25 of that particular date through june 5 of 2019, we only received 13 mos impacting 709 workers. A snapshot what we see with unemployment at our office. We had something we look at very much. We get monthly reports. We are just now starting to see the unemployment data from the state Employment Development department for San Francisco residents looking for work. This is a brief table here to give additional context. This is a chart that shows where we were in terms of unemployment a year ago. We were at 2. 1 . The way the state reports unemployment. It is a simple answer to a simple question. Are you looking for work . Last time 11,900 san franciscans said yes, i am actively looking for work. That dropped 1. 9 , 2. 3 . You will see for the year we averaged 2 unemployment. Sometimes a little more and sometimes a little less. That was san franciscans actively looking for work. March of this year we see an uptick to 3 . That means that we had in the two weeks following shelterinplace increase of 4,000 month on month from end of march compared to end of february. Then when you look at april this is the first of the data coming in during the real hard escalated impact of coronavirus of the safe guard we saw unemployment jump to 12. 6 . Just to give you a little context in terms of the nature of the impact. This graph visualizes what that means. 10 years ago during the economic recession, Great Recession that we spoke of, there was at that time a record high in unemployment in january 2010 Led Community advocates, policymakers, employers to adopt a mandatory local hiring ordinance for construction projects. That year unemployment was then record high of 10. 1 as of april we are at 12. 2 . A couple other data pointings. This gives you a sense of what is happening and data that speaks to the very real urgency workers face that supervisor mar presented to the committee. Unemployment claims we have new data we received from the state from the week we are talking about for purposes of the ordinance february 25th date. That was the date of emergency order. From the weekending february 29 to the weekending may 30th, the state received a total of 159,193 new Unemployment Insurance claims from san franciscans. By context the mayor spoke to the fact during the 2008200 the Great Recession. Supervisor peskin was a leader at that time. The unemployment claims in that era was 45,000 and we received nearly 160,000 to date. To give a little bit of context what we are doing at our office. We are the convener of the Work Force Board working with labor organizations and employers and other departments to really meet the needs of those impacted workers directly in the case of staff and hardworking Service Providers on the ground, 45 different communitybased organizations. Particularly the Neighborhood Job centers that are on the front lines in seven different neighborhoods. Citywide job center operated by goodwin and seven cbo based neighborhood centers. In almost every since stance, one in each district focuses on neighborhoods of need. We have presented and our director presented our effort goes to stand up to the work force hot line staffed by the office of economic work force Division Staff and Human Service agency represents and selfhelp from the elderly and metta to make sure we are available to answer calls up to six different languages seven days each week. Since the order we received nearly 4,000 calls. Questions around unemployment, helping to alleviate the questions that come up in the challenges to make sure to get through to Unemployment Insurance. The state is working hard, they are overwhelmed like a lot of systems are experiencing strains. We support the state to answer questions as best we can. Nearly 1,000 participants on the weekly Rapid Response webinairs where our Staff Services team are an addition the state of california and the Labor Council working with airport workers an hour and hour and a half of question and answer. I will conclude and say on behalf of our department i want to express thank you, supervisor mar, to work to address the concerns raised in various form forums. As someone who has answered phone calls myself to make sure we are staffed on the hot line, it is a big question folks have. If i am laid off will i be able to return . In the case of collective Bargaining Agreement that is the rock of gibraltar. The Labor Movement is the ability to return and seniority. It is definitely important to have tools we can to make sure if the temporary layoffs get everyone back to work as soon as possible. With respect to the role you have created and thank you to edward in your office for working with us and the dialogue with you personally. The role for our office we believe we have the infrastructure in place to perform the responsibility ifs, particularly in the emergency period of the ordinance. We will be upfront about being sure we have the capacities to meet the need and a lot of staff is the citybuilt staff fielding phone calls, particularly the by link guam calls and other lack languages. We are committed to this resource and working with you. Thank you again. Thank you for all of the work you have provided for workers impacted. The multilink gal hot line you the hot line and website is most comprehensive list of resources that have been created to support workers and businesses. You guys have played an Important Role in helping workers and businesses weather the storm. I look forward to having you add if the board moves forward with the adoption of back to work ordinance, information about this new policy and worker support benefit. Thank you so much. Colleagues, any questions . I dont have questions but i have comments and questions for you as sponsor. Why dont we hold that. I want to go to the second informational presentation that we had scheduled with katie who is staff tore for legal aid at work and she has been providing Important Information to workers who have been laid off. The unprecedented number of workers laid off locally in this crisis. Thank you for having me here to speak. As supervisor mar mentioned. I am a staff attorney at legal aid at work, a nonprofit in San Francisco dedicated to workers rights and helping families with low income find stability and justice at work. The reason i am here today is to make clear the extent to which workers have been forced out of jobs by covid19. Especially the Lasting Impact of these job losses on workers and their families. At legal aid at work we run a help line and remote legal clinic to help workers. Since the shelterinplace order we have been getting more calls than offer. Normally we get 3,000 calls in a year in two months we received over 1,000 calls. Many felt unsafe at work, worried about losing their job or pay to take time off. Many were calling because they had been laid off and didnt know what to do. As he mentioned, according to the Employment Development department the state unemployment has risen to 14. 4 and 12. 6 in San Francisco county, with the biggest job losses occurring in leisure and hospitality. Over 50,000 between San Francisco and san mateo counties. Many workers are low paid immigrants and people of color. The reason this is critical to talk about is because the longterm consequences of unemployment is associated with significant harms for families and communities. Research by the urban institute on the consequences of longterm unemployment found that longterm unemployment can lead to in addition to loss of income, of course, lower wages at the point every employment leading to a lifetime of lower wages for that worker and increased likely wood of workers abandoning the labor market altogether. It also found that longterm unemployment is associated with worse selfreported health and wellbeing. Lowered lifespans and possible decline in Mental Health. For the children of people who experience longterm unemployment, it results in lower grades, lower graduation rates, increased cognitive stress. These are harms that dont impact only the individual but the entire community. It is critical that workers are able to stay home when working is unsafe. Only asked to return to work in safe environments. If workers are not given the opportunity to return to work, families will face additional risks and hard ships. Thank you so much for your work to support san franciscans through this difficult time and thank you for giving me this time to speak with you. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for the important work you and legal aid have been doing to support laid off workers navigate unemployment and weather the storm. Colleagues, any questions from legal aid at work . Thank you for your presentations. I want to move ahead with just some quick overview to the back to work ordinance, key provisions and talk through the outreach and input process we have engaged with over the past week. Then i will present a summary of the amendments that i am presenting today. For the back to work ordinance as introduced, i wanted to go over the key provisions. This is the first hearing we are having on it. Laid off workers will have the right of first refusal for jobs if and when the former employer reopens and rehires. Which is going to start to happen at an accelerated rate in the coming weeks and months. Hiring will be priority by seniority by each job classification. It requires wages and scheduling and benefits unless the employer is unable to maintain these terms in which case they are exempted. The former employees position is not rehired they will be offered any similar position they are qualified for. The employers must provide notice to the city of layoffs and provide information on available city resources. In terms who is covered by the back to work ordinance. The requirement applies to any employer who lays off 10 or more employees within 30days starting on february 25, 2020. In terms who is not covered, employers with fewer than 10 employees and this is on the ordinance as introduced employers with fewer than 10 employees are exempt. Employers who do not layoff less than 10 and employees covered by collective bargaining are exempt. We know workers are facing this crisis, so are Small Businesses. We know Small Businesses need support now more than ever. I will shortly share the changes we are making in this ordinance to address the concerns we have heard from Small Business owners among others. I want to be clear we have met with and worked with more business stakeholders than anything else we ever worked on including Small Business owners and commission and chamber of commerce, golden gate restaurant association, sf committee on jobs, sf hospital council, sf hotel council, Manufacturing Council and sf city. In addition to their feedback we have worked with Worker Centers and labor advocates in preparing these amendments. I want to give an overview of the amendments before we go into discussion about the ordinance and to Public Comment. I want to ensure the public is informed about the changes i intend to make today. I want to note that we all have received letters expressing concerns about this ordinance from Small Business owners and Small Business commission. I believe firmly we have addressed these concerns with the amendmentses presented today. These include exempting employers with less than 100. This is on larger employers. Iin alignment with the office of Small Business. The process of preparing this has been difficult as we acbeinr acknowledge it is a tradeoff. We are removing protection for workers. This is the difficult decision and one we do not make tightly. We have been convinced of the necessity by Small Business stakeholders including Small Business commission, office of Small Business and council of district merchants. We exempt Healthcare Operations employers. In collaboration with hospital council, we want to also limit administrative impacts on Health Care Providers due to unique and urgent circumstances. We are therefore exempting them from this ordinance. We are removing th the 90 day retention requirement. We understand the emergency they are operating under and are not in a position to guarantee employment retention. We dont know what may come in the next 90 days. We are removing that requirement. We are adding an employee misconduct carve out for reemployment offer. In cases where former employees committed misconduct to justify ending employment and where it was discovered, the employer will be exempt for having to offer reemployment. We are carving out severance agreements where there is a formal agreement of severance this would not over rule that and they would be extent from this law. We are removing most of section 5a4 and 5a5, the provisions that required list of laid off workers to be provided to the city with workers authorization. These were the most burden some administrative requirements for businesses and city agencies. We removed them. We are preserving that requirement that eligible workers be notified about layoffs and be provided with hot line number to call to access further information and support. We are offering email and text. Requiring mailing of notification to workers only if email and text are not an option. This makes it easier to quickly bring people back to work and represents a careful balance between the need and preserving a reasonable duration of job offers for those seeks reemployment. We clarify the notification period is longer for retroactive notification. 30days from the Effective Date of the emergency order. This is a cleanup change to clarify the notification timeframe to laid off workers for employers who made layoffs before this is effective. We are authorizing olsc to issue regulations and do rule making to provide clarity and guidance and minimize litigation without requiring staff for administrative work. Given did hiring freeze and limited staff this is the most responsible choice. We are directing layoffs and reemployment notifications to oewd and replacing the hot line included in the employee notification with one managed by oewd. Oewd already received layoff notifications under both the federal act. It makes sense to receive these additional notices, too. In addition owwd manages a hot line for resources to workers employed or unemployed. This will make it more accessible to those who need it the most. We have updated the findings to reflect the numbers on unemployment claims filed by those in San Francisco. That is an overview. It is quite a list. We are advised by the City Attorney they are non substantive. We can act on the amendments today. Colleagues, any questions or comments before we go to Public Comment . I can hold my questions until after Public Comment. Me, too. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, why dont we go to Public Comment. Any callers on the line . For those connected press star and 3 to speak. For those on hold in the queue please continue to waits until prompted to begin at the beep. Those watching on cable channel 26 or streaming or through sfgovtv if you wish to speak, please call in by following the instructions displayed on your screen. 415 6550001. Access code for today 145 4314683. Press the pound symbol twice and star three to speak. Do we have any speakers for agenda item 8 . Yes. There are eight callers in the queue. Caller good morning. I am matthew toy. I am a worker. I have been a worker at tar teen for 2. 5 years. I started in the factory in alabama street in San Francisco. In september i moved to the berkeley location. I am thankful to have gordon mar give us input and ask for our input. This is a hard union antiunion campaign from our employer. Right now we are in a situation where many of us are laid off, and we are not too sure if we are going to come back. Right now tar tain is hiring people at lower wages. For 18 an hour are now minimum wage is one example. When we first started to give input to gordon mars office. It was just we wanted this ordinance and we wanted our input to include a lot of city workers. We really appreciate the way that the office of gordon mar made sure to reach out t to the business and labor community. There is a smaller idea now expanded. A lot of workers dont have any protection to come back to work because most of the time it is due to bargaining. I really want to be able to see this ordinance through and i support this ordinance. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller i am john. Shop stewart at anchor. We fought long and hard for a contract that had this particular wording in it. I think i it would be beneficial to all workers in San Francisco to be covered by that same wording. My one comment would be 100 employees or moi mois mo or ma high bar. Think about that with your decision. A lot of workers are in the industry with companies with a lot less than 100 employees. I fully support this. It would be great for the community. That is my comment. Thank you for your time and good luck. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Karl is the third speaker still connected . Am i on . Yes, we are ready for your comments to agenda item 8. Caller thank you. I am denny miller. I live in San Francisco and i fully support this proposition. I agree with the earlier caller about 100 employees. That is a lot, especially in San Francisco. I would like to definitely think about reconsidering that number. I think there is a very, very important proposition. I support it 100 . Is thank you very much for your comments. Next caller, please. Caller yeah, good morning. I am pat thomas. I am a district 5 resident, employee at tar teen bakery as well. I am calling to express my support for this ordinance. As someone who has witnessed firsthand the way that the company will fight tooth and nail to undermine the employees attempts to unionize, i would be heartened to see the city enact this to ensure employers dont take advantage of this pandemic as an opportunity to clean house. I dont see this ordinance as being particularly burden some on employers as it doesnt require businesses to hire people before they are ready to, only when they do the jobs are offered to workers who had them before. As someone who has been working to establish new footholds for organized labor in this city, and who doesnt believe that a pandemic like this should constitute a setback for such efforts. I urge the board to vote yes on this ordinance. Thank you. Next caller, please. Caller i am hope williams. I am a board member of the Harvey Milk Club and advocate for union workers. I would like to thank the Committee Members and supervisor mar and the cosponsors of this item, haney, preston, safai and fewer. From the economic Recovery Plan to the listing of shelterinplace, the city is prioritizing the needs of businesses. What about the workers. Workers create the wealth of the businesses. They are more essential now than ever. They need protection. They need support from the city and access to reemployment. This policy should be a nobrainer. Laid off workers should be rehired before being replaced. This shouldnt be controversial we cannot replace vulnerable workers. The Democratic Committee has fought for the lanegor movement and voted to support this. We urge you to support it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning, supervisors. I am katie hansen with the california restaurant association. This fames to take into account the manner in which restaurants operate. Those that remained open on limited service modelings during the crisis did so with many of the fulltime fixed costs and challenges. Under this new mandate being proposed restaurants would be forced to rehigher staff based on seniority rather than need such as chefs and cooks. Providing up to 10 days to respond depending how it is offered is unworkable for Restaurant Community employers. An employer will not be able to offer open positions to anyone else due to the level of seniority. If there are four positions open it could take a month to hire those. When restaurants are barely able to reopen, this will further damage the ability to successfully operate. It has detailed requirements for Record Keeping and providing notices to employees, employers and the city regarding layoff and reemployment offers. Restaurants dont have the in house personnel to process the recordkeeping when they are trying to reopen doors and struggling to comply and comply with health orders. This will delay the ability of restaurants to reopen to further unemployment and lead to the loss of tax revenues to San Francisco. We urge you to oppose this proposal as drafted as it would have a detrimental impact on the entire Restaurant Committee in San Francisco. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. Next speaker, please. Caller thank you, mr. Chair. I am bermita. An organizer with the longterm workers. I want to echo some of the statements that supervisor mar said. San francisco is a union town. When we talk about being a union town, we could say i it is a lar town. We want equity for all workers, not just people who have the luxury of being luxury or goodwill of having a union contract. We need to protect all workers. Right now due to covid19 a lot of workers recently laid off do not have a contract, do not have the right to go back. We need to provide that to them through there legislation. I have had numerous calls which workers laid off said do you know if i will have my job back in this is our only recourse to pay the rent. How will we do it if the restaurant get us back to work . All of this legislation will do is give security, needed security to those workers that are suffering right now. They are struggling in the city and county of San Francisco. It will live them security that once the restaurant opens it will call them by seniority and of their classification. No one is expecting everyone is going to be called back immediately, no one is expecting not the workers, not this legislation doesnt mandate that everybody be called back immediately. It is when the restaurants are in line to begin operations, then they will go back and call the persons that already have been working there and know the procedure and how to operate and how to do what they do best. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller i am hall. I was laid off had march after working for two years at the bakery. I have been involved with the union. Basically, every time i talk to my friends and family i am asked if i get my job back. I have no idea. It is very stressful to be in the state of limbo. Most Service Workers are in a similar place. We know it wont happen all at once. It will take a long time. We deserve to know we arent replaced. Four of the six people i live with are in the same position. We dont all work at the same place, we have the same type of jobs. These are careers. I dont want us to find our positions on craigslist. It is the simple thing to do and the right thing to do. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Caller hello. I work at coffee roseters in San Francisco. I am calling to support the current item. I think it would be really important to also prioritize black and Indigenous People of color who have put time in, who have seniority. These are like every day people who build their careers and Service Industry and it is important that the Restaurants Community step up to make the appropriate call and to center their workers and do better on hr. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hello everyone. For me the situation feels familiar. I came from new orleans when the hurricanes came through. That wasnt the only storm. There was an economic storm that completely wiped out communities totally untouched with flood waters. My grandmothre had been with the same legal firm for 30days. She was replaced by people. My black cousins were fired. White colleagues got jobs back. The exact same factors and exact same reasons why those decisions were made in louisiana in 2003 are the same factors that those decisions are going to be made in San Francisco today. This is very personal to me. This is not hypothetical. I know exactly what will happen. I am furloughed. I am not advocating for myself. I am for the grandmothers. I dont want families to suffer. This would have been alive safer. I urge you to pass this ordinance. Thank you. Next speaker, please. That completes the queue. Thank you. Hearing no other callers on the line, Public Comment is now closed. Colleagues do you have questions or comments . Supervisor peskin . I appreciate your work on this and all of the Public Comment we have gotten and your acknowledgment that we have heard from a lot of folks, including some you didnt mention, nonprofits that many of us hold near and dear. I am relatively certain that the changes you are proposing today will go a long way if not all the way to meeting the concerns that we heard expressed in those quarters, but because i have not had i only got the amendment last evening and given this morning havent had a chance to reach out to those folks to make sure they feel the same way. My proposal would be to send to the full board without recommendation. It is going as Committee Report so i can get between now and tuesday to get with those folks to make sure it is meeting their concerns, addressing their concerns. Thank you, supervisor peskin. I appreciate your support of the ordinance and consideration of the amendment. I understand your interest in checking in with some Key Stakeholders. I also appreciate your willingness to move this forward along the timeline that we have proposed, which is having the full board vote on it on june 23rd because we would like to get this enacted as soon as possible. Businesses are starting to reopen and rehire. Thithis is an an important timeo move it forward. Supervisor haney. First of all, thank you and your staff, supervisor mar. I am proud t to cosponsor this and workers and those who collaborated on it. I appreciate the amendments. They address some of the issues that have come forward. We absolutely do need to be prioritizing workers during this time and not seeing a situation where people are pushed out of their jobs during this pandemic and having rights violated and not allowed to come back. There are a number of folks who called in from restaurants or cafes, and it is my understanding with the amendment that most of those types of businesses would be excluded because of the sort of size of employees that are required. What are your i would like to hear more what we can do for folks in those situations. The folks from tar teen and i dont know if that would be a business that would be excluded. I understand that, you know, the reasons for the Small Businesses excluded. Would you speak about that and for some of the folks who called in who may no longer be covered by this legislation. Thanks for the question, supervisor haney, around the amendment that increases the covered employer thresholds from 10 to 100 or more employees. This was made, as i stated, to address the concerns of Small Business community and Small Business stakeholders about the challenges that this requirement would present them as they navigate reopening their businesses, and you know it was made with the understanding that Small Businesses face or smaller employers face more challenges than larger businesses with a larger pool of laid off employees to draw from. Yes, that is true. It does reduce the number of businesses that are covered. [please stand by] thank you, and i know that theres legislation at the state level that may impact or accomplish similar things or and is this how did this interact with some of the legislation thats been potentially proposed . Or proposed to be heard at the state level, is there a similar efforts that are happening in the states. Theres a similar proposal a right to reemployment proposal that was included in a state bill that and so that is you know, its still under sort of consideration on a state level. Its my understanding that its uncertain whether that is going to make it through legislatively on a state level and be adopted. So i think that this is an example of San Francisco, you know, helping to sort of lead the way on expanding workers rights and support for workers in a way that could help move the policy forward on a state level and in other cities. I know that l. A. Los angeles passed a similar ordinance but it was a much more limited in scope. And then other cities are considering it. Oakland and san jose as well on a local level. So i think this is where just like many of our progressive local labor laws that we have created here in San Francisco, it can help to benefit not just the workers here in San Francisco, but workers elsewhere by just sending a model, an example. Great, thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you for your work on this. Great. Well, thanks again. I just want to, again, to thank everyone that has provided input on this really on groundbreaking and bold but very important policy measures to support laid off workers in our city. You know, i want to thank all of the labor the labor and Worker Rights advocates that initially, you know, brought this proposal to our attention and who work with us closely over the last week. But also i want to thank all of the businesses, Small Businesses and the Large Businesses and the associations that weve worked with to craft the best possible policy that also that takes into consideration, you know, the needs and the concerns of the businesses and employers. And i want to thank the City Attorneys office, particularly jenica, the deputy City Attorney that worked on this with our complicated ancomplicated and gg legislation. And thank you to joss and the economic Work Development and pat mulligan in the labor standards enforcement who have also consulted with us and helped to shape this policy with the amendment. So finally, i want to acknowledge all of the work, incredible amount of work, that edward wright, my legislative aide, has provided on this this very complicated policy. And really excited to to really move this forward to the board. So i guess per supervisor peskins request to to have more time to to consult with Key Stakeholders around the amendment that were just presented and i would make a motion that we move this forward oh, i would like to make a motion that we accept the amendment that i presented today. Mr. Clerk, can you please cull roll. Clerk on the motion afterred by char mar to amend the emergency ordinance, vicechair peskin. Peskin, aye. Member haney. Haney, aye. Chair mar . Aye. Mar, aye. Mr. Chair, there are three ayes. Supervisor mar thank you. And then i would move that we have this item as a Committee Report to the full board without recommendations to the june 23rd meeting of the board of supervisors. Clerk on the motion that the emergency ordinance be forwarded to the full board of supervisors as amended without recommendation. Vicechair peskin. Aye. Peskin, aye. Member haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Chair mar. Mar, aye. Mr. Chair, there are three ayes. Supervisor mar thank you. Great. Mr. Clerk, is there any further business . Clerk there is no further business before the committee. Supervisor mar thank you, we are adjourned. Is our United States constitution requires every ten years that america counts every human being in the United States, which is incredibly important for many reasons. Its important for preliminary representation because if Political Representation because if we under count california, we get less representatives in congress. Its important for San Francisco because if we dont have all of the people in our city, if we dont have all of the folks in california, california and San Francisco stand to lose billions of dollars in funding. Its really important to the city of San Francisco that the federal government gets the count right, so weve created count sf to motivate all sf count to motivate all citizens to participate in the census. For the immigrant community, a lot of people arent sure whether they should take part, whether this is something for u. S. Citizens or whether its something for anybody whos in the yUnited States, and it is something for everybody. Census counts the entire population. Weve given out 2 million to over 30 communitybased organizations to help people do the census in the communities where they live and work. Weve also partnered with the Public Libraries here in the city and also the Public Schools to make sure there are informational materials to make sure the folks do the census at those sites, as well, and weve initiated a campaign to motivate the citizens and make sure they participate in census 2020. Because of the language issues that many Chinese Community and families experience, there is a lot of mistrust in the federal government and whether their private information will be kept private and confidential. So its really important that communities like bayviewhunters point participate because in the past, theyve been under counted, so what that means is that funding that should have gone to these communities, it wasnt enough. Were going to help educate people in the tenderloin, the multicultural residents of the tenderloin. You know, any one of our given blocks, theres 35 different languages spoken, so we are the original u. N. Of San Francisco. So its our job is to educate people and be able to familiarize themselves on doing this census. You go online and do the census. Its available in 13 languages, and you dont need anything. Its based on household. You put in your address and answer nine simple questions. How many people are in your household, do you rent, and your information. Your name, your age, your race, your gender. Everybody is 2,000 in funding for our child care, housing, food stamps, and medical care. All of the residents in the city and county of San Francisco need to be counted in census 2020. If youre not counted, then your community is underrepresented and will be underserved. Good afternoon. This is the ann moeller case caen. Im the president of the San Francisco Public Utilities commission. I would like to call this to order. Towe. role call