|
Tuesday, June 02, 2020
|
>> good afternoon. Welcome to the san francisco
board of supervisors.
Role call, please.
Role call: Mr. President, all
Mr. President, all members are present. We'll say the pledge of allegiance.
Would you like to join me?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america
and to the republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
>> thank you, everybody. On pap
behalf of the board I would
like to acknowledge the staff at sfg tv and making it available
to the public.
Colleagues, I want to do a little something different before we get on with the show.
I would like to have you join me
in starting our meeting today --
with a moment of silence.
Sorry. For george floyd and his family, friends and community.
George floyd's tragic death at
the hands of four police
officers in minneapolis last week.
This is a reflection of the systematic oppression, racism
and injustice that the black
community has
has endured.
Our city mourns minneapolis and
the people across the country.
The officers responsible for
george floyd's death must be held accountable and that is
only a fraction of the justice we must deliver for george floyd.
So everyone standing up and
demanding justice for george
floyd and for so many sons and daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and friends,
we hear you and we see you and
we are with you. We must commit ourselves to
healing the deep inequities and racial divides that continue to plague us.
We also need to reflect on ourselves in san francisco how
we can do better in standing up
to racial injustice, especially
for our black community members.
So at this moment, I would like
to take a moment to pause in
silence. >> are there think communications? >> the minutes will reflect as a result of the ongoing covid-19
pandemic, members of the board
are participating in the board meeting through video conference
to the same extent as if they were physically present in their legislative chamber. Members of the public are also able to participate remotely in the following ways. For those who do not have the internet, the U.S. Postal service will deliver your
written core
correspondence to room
244, san francisco, california,
94102 and for those whose interest is to listen to the
proceedings, you May do so from
your stone by dialing 415-65-5001 and when prompted,
enter the following access code,
which is 921-46-2660 and press pound twice. You'll have joined and are able to listen to the meeting in
progress.
To provide your general public
comment -- this is item 24 -- you'll call from a quiet location, mute your television
or radio and speak slowly and
each speaker will be allowed two
minutes to speak and there is no electioneering at these
meetings, please do not volk for volk for advocate
for a candidate or matter. The board will take your public comment and we'll provide the telephone number is access code again later in the meeting. It is currently scrolling on
your television and if you have the internet and you were
interested in submitting written
core upon dense, please do so to board.Gov.Supervisors@sfgov.Org
and watch it on www.Sfgov and
this has a little bit of a delay, so make sure you turn down your television or if you call in for general public
comment.
Lastly, we have several individuals who have been
assigned to this meeting by the
office of civic education,
director adrienne pon and we
have individuals who are ready
to provide the public comment interpretation.
If you would please provide that
you're here for the public,
we'll start with se la camillo. Pair
Speaking foreign language: .
>> thank you, and now we'll go
to Miss Lee and please let the
community know you're here for
them.
Speaking foreign language: .
>> and Mr. Ar
Mr. Arturo.
Speaking foreign language: . >> Mr. President, that concludes my communication.
>> thank you, Madam Clerk. Just a friendly remind for all
of the supervisors to mute your
microphones when you are not
speaking to audio feedback. And colleagues, today we are
approving the minutes from the
April 14th, 2020 regular board meeting.
Are there any changes to the
meeting minutes?
Seeing none, can I have a motion
to approve the minutes as presented?
>> so moved, peskin.
>> seconded, fewer. >> supervisor fewer. >> Madam Clerk, can you please
call the role.
Role call: .
>> there are 11 ayes. This will be approved after public comment is presented. Put before we
>> before we start, I want to
warn the public that I will be
introducing an imperative item today during role call and generally, we take these items
at the end of meeting, but
of the meeting, but I
will be taking this item out of order and will be presented
after role call and once you hear the introduction and you want to speak on it, then that's your opportunity to speak on
that one item.
Madam Clerk, let's go to the consent health.
Please call items 1-5. >> items 1-5, consent,
considered to be routine.
If a member objects, an item May be removed is considered
separately. >> colleagues, is there anyone to sever any items on the
consent agenda?
>> I see no names on the roster. please call the role on items 1-5.
>> on items 1-5.
Role call: .
>> there are 11 ayes.
>> it passes unanimously. >> please call 6-9 together on
the regular agenda.
>> 6-9, four lease agreements with the airport commission for
item 6, it approves on the
airport rental car lease for a
five-year term with two,
two-year options to extend a
minimum annual guarantee or mag
of 11 million for the first year
of the least and an operation's
lease with enterprise renta car
for a five-year term and two,
two-year options to extend a mag of 16 million. This
a lease with hertz and two,
two-year options to extend and
$16 million mag and item 9 is a resolution
resolution to approve the less for
leasefor a five-year term.
>> Madam Clerk, can you please
call the role.
>> on items 6-9 --
Role call: .
>> there are 11 arc yes.
>> the resolutions are adopted
nancy. Unanimously.
Let's go to our new business calling item number 10.
>> item 10 is a resolution to authorize the executive director
of the human service's agency to
execute a grant between the city
and home bridge, inc to June 30,
2025.
>> please call the role.
Role call: .
>> are 11 ay session.
>> without objection, the
resolution is adopted unanimously.
>> item 11 to approve an updated
conditional property exchange
agreement with esx jackson for a proposed future transfer of city
real property of 530 under the jurisdiction of the fire department in exchange for a
portion of the real property as
425 to 439 washington street, subject to conditions and to
make the appropriate findings.
>> ok, Madam Clerk, supervisor peskin.
>> thank you, President Yee. I want to thank our folks in the
department of real estate,
particularly john updyke for his
work on this, and thank all of
my colleagues who have voted on
several earlier enabling pieces of legislation for this project
that I've been pursuing for over
15 years to build a high-rise
development in the downtown area
where fire station 13 is located
and use the proceeds from that
transaction to build affordable
housing nearby in chinatown on a piece of property that we all
voted to acquire at 772 pacific avenue.
I also want to thank related california, the developer who
won the rfp for this, as well as the fire department that will
end up with a new fire station 13 as a result of this transaction and I commend it to
all of you for your vote in the affirmative.
Thank you, President Yee. >> thank you.
Madam Clerk, now can you please call the role.
Role call: .
This is item 11.
>> there are 11 ayes.
>> Madam Clerk, please call
items 12 and 13. >> items 12 and 13 are called
together to execute a multifamily housing revenue note.
Item 12 is an aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $49.1 million is to provide financing for the construction
of a 141-unit multifamily
housing unit and item 13 is in
an aggregate principal amount
not to exceed 68 billion and financing for the acquisition
and rehabilitation of a 104 unit
multi-rental housing unit
located at 1049 golden gate
avenue known as the frederick
douglas haine apartment. >> Madam Clerk, can you please
call the role?
Items 12 and 13 --
Role call: .
>> are 11 ayes.
Madam Clerk, the next item.
>> item 14 to retroactively authorize the department of public health to accept and
expand a $190,000 grant from the
california department of public
health for hepatitis c virus and control activities for the
period of December 1st, 2019
through June 30th, 2020.
>> Madam Clerk, let's go ahead
and call the role.
>> on item 14 --
Role call: .
>> there are 11 ayes. Let's go to item 15.
>> a resolution to authorize the department of technology to enter into an agreement between
the city and the zones llc for microsoft cloud software, an enterprise product for a
39-month term, June 1st, 2020
through August 21, 2023 for an
amount not to exceed 40 million.
Mr. President, are you muted? Call the role? >> on item 15 -- >> Mr. President, I didn't
have my name up. Is microsoft in a position where
we can have two team's meetings
at once, please. >> we'll relay the message to the office of contract administration. >> you would think for $40 million, we could have two meetings at the same time.
>> thank you, supervisor peskin.
Can we call the role?
>> item 15 --
Role call: .
>> there are 11 ayes.
>> it's adopted unanimously.
Please call 16-18 together.
>> items 16-18 are applied for
accept and expend the fiscal year 2020-2021, united states
department of housing and urban development grants. For item 16, the housing
opportunities for persons with
aids, a grant program in an
amount of 7 million and to
expand programs for a combined
total of 10.2 million through
June 30th, 2025.
Item 17, in item approves the
emergency solution's grant, the
emg program in an amount of
1.6 million beginning July 21, 2020 and item 18, approves the
fiscal year 2020 through 2021,
home investment partnership, the
home program in an amount of 5.
5.4 million for a combined total
of 7.5 million through June 30,
2525. 2025. >> Madam, clerk, can you call
the role on 16-18.
>> on items 16-18 --
Role call:
>> there are 11 ay session. >> supervisor walton, I see you on the roster, did you want to say something? >> item 19.
>> ok.
>> you're always ahead of me. [Laughter] >> without objection, the resolutions are adopted unanimously. Madam Clerk, please call the next item. >> item 19 was referred without recommendation from the budget and finance committee.
It's a revolution to approve the
fiscal year 2020-2021, community development grant in an amount of approximately 18.6 million
and to expand program income and
program funds in the amount of approximately 7 million for a
combined total of approximately 35.6 million for the period beginning July 1st, 2020, through the date when all of the
funds are expended. >> supervisor walton?
>> thank you so much, President Yee.
I wanted to go on record, much like at the budget and finance committee just to make the statements about the fact that
the mayor's office of housing and community development has a
track record of being disrespectful and disingenuous
to indigenous organizations,
particularly black
organizations, primarily
.
They stated they had a focus on prioritizing black-lead organizations as well as focus
on equity and not only did they
not fund equitable and only
given 2% of 40% million dollars
to black-lead organizations, but they want against their own
priorities and their own protocols in terms of how to
fund during this funding cycle
and I just want to make sure, I would have thought against moving this forward had I not had a lot of love and respect for all of the other
organizations that did receive
funding during this process.
Mostly they have attempted to
remedy this continuous and systematic disrespect of black organizations by putting another million dollars in the street
for programming and another million for capacity building,
but that does nothing to exert
the issues that exist when most releasing funs out into the
community. Releasing
releasing funds out.
I think they should work to really practise what they say they'll focus on and actually, I
served for the department of
youth and families and we prioritized and shifted our funding and we had conversations with organizations that we see
in terms of thousands of dollars
prior to new priorities and I say that when you change priorities, when you shift and say you'll focus on equity, then
you'll have to make some hard decisions in terms of what doesn't continue. I needn't do that in this case
and they haven't done that in the past decade plus and I want it on record that they cannot
continue to operate in this disingenuous matter.
>> thank you, supervisor walton.
So I don't see anybody else on the rosters.
Can you call the role. >> on item 19 --
Role call: .
>> there are 11 ayes. >> ok, without objection the resolution is adopted
unanimously.
Madam Clerk, let's go to our
role call.
>> but just for the public, item 22 is on our agenda, but it was not sent as a committee report, so it is not before the board
today.
Role call for introduction.
Supervisor hainey, you're first up to introduce new business.
>> thank you, Madam Clerk, I have one item for role call.
Today I am introducing a resolution urging the city
administrator to immediately
nominate an interim county
officer for the veterans in the city and county of san francisco during covid-19.
The toll on the virus on veterans has been particularly harsh.
They are often but not always older and many reside in shelters, nursing homes, homecare facilities that have been breeding grounds for the
virus and many are frontline essential workers continuing to
serve in our city as hospital
workers, sheriffs and others. Last week, during memorial day, we paid tribute to not only
those who died on the battlefield but more recent people who have fallen to covid-19. Many of the veterans served and
survive during the times of war
only to die in the recent weeks from the coronavirus. We held a press conference last
week with a number of organizations in partnership with the veteran's affair's commission and the resounding message from the group is that we need to support our veterans during this time.
There are over 27,000 veterans in san francisco is and many
reside in district 6 and many are african-american and people of colour struggling to get the support they needs a veteran. Initial reports indicate that
10% of the covid-19-related deaths in san francisco have come from the veteran population
and many of the veterans are tragically homeless or live in shelters and lives have been further disrupted during this
time and some moved to new facilities and being provided new care and environments and
the va May not always have the same level of access to them. Because of that, they need to
have a central advocate to represent them. The petition of county veteran's service's officer has been left vacant including during this crisis.
The city needs a dedicated
liaison with san francisco's
eoc, the state and federal agencies and veteran's organizations. The city needs a coordinated plan to ensure access to services for veterans and tracking them across our system
of care and ensuring they do not fall through the cracks.
The resolution I'm introducing calls on the city administrator
to conduct a national search and I believe there has been a
process to put in place a permanent veteran's service officer but we cannot wait in order to ensure that somebody is in that position right now. Over the long-tem, working with our veterans and for our veterans is critical in order to
ensure the public health of this
community and often, they are
left out and forgotten in many of the services and responses. I also want to acknowledge the
work that supervisor stephanie
has done on this issue, as well, and I'll look forward to
partnering with her and the
veteran's affair's commission who has done extraordinary work
to make sure our veterans are supported during this crisis and beyond.
The rest I submit. >> thank you.
>> supervisor mamdleman.
>> thank you, Madam Clerk. >> colleagues, I have two in mem
more ya and a hearing request
today.
I would like to ask we ajourn
margo amaretti. She earned degrees in psychologies and women studies
and had a long history in her
professional life.
We all think of outs
ourselves as
activists, but one says, margo really was.
She supported housing as we know it in san francisco. She helped
today, there are over 1700 individuals across 38 sites.
In her role, she served for the community program and building relationships with providers and clients.
Those in the provider community described her as the bureaucrat we trusted and the colleagues
that worked for the city felt the same. District 8 supervisor described
how margo's deep care for clients made her loved and made others want her to be successful. He
she remained at dph in urban
health from 2012 to 2016 and
they were left in awe of her commitment. She was an exceptional advocate
and thought for justice who colleagues describe as a force of nature and electric bright
light in this world. Margo's debted case to
dedication helped to address homelessness and she
became one of the founding
members of the department of homelessness.
She brought a public health
commitment to permanent housing
as a solution to homelessness. She oversaw more than 80,000
sites with over 5
5,000 units of housing. Those she worked with remember
her as a caring supervisor who
went above and beyond her staff and the staff passed away, margaret was there for her team
and jokingly called her the self care police she knew how hard the staff was working and took care of themselves.
I met margo a few times and knew
she was a giant but from the conversations my staff and I had with those who worked with her,
it is clear, she was a beloved
advocate.
She was an incredible mentor, everybody's queer aunt and she
showed you the ropes and she gave her life to the people she serve asked
served and she has transformed
many thousands of lives and we owe her our internal gratitude.
I believe supervisor ronen has memories she would like to share about margo.
>> yes. Supervisor ronen.
>> thank you so much.
I do.
I first just wanted to thank
supervisor mamdelman for his words.
When I heard the tragic news is
saw the outpouring of grief in the housing world, I reached out to them.
Not every city worker builds bridges between city and community and what sometimes
feels like the bureauic
government and warmth of our organization. She span that guide effectively and gracefully and I wanted to add to what my colleague said by sharing the words and stories of community partners who worked
with is loved margo. Margo. When cheryl spoke about her close friend and colleague, her
first words were about her deep foundational belief in social justice and fairness. She would always side with the underdog. Margo would say if there is a fight between a little poodle
and dobberman, I'm there for the pooledle.
She never left home without her narcan and would check on people if she thought they were this trouble. She treated everybody with
respect and grace anxiousness.
.
She was a warrior for housing. Margo through that to successfully house people with complex physical and mental
illness and substance abuse
issues, it would take a new approach of property management and together they created the model that would be dish. Her focus was always on people who through the cracks in our system and lifting up the voices of the people who serve them to be included in policy decisions.
When a tenant was in trouble, at
risk of losing housing or when everyone thought they used all
of the services that were available, here would come margo
to sit down one more time, pull up close to the ten wants ants and find out how to help. She was always there to fight
for the tenants is asking, how can we make it better.
The former director of deloris street community services
remembered margo's role with a
deeply supportive housing that
housing former homeless. With deep services and programming, it was conceived as a partnership between the city
and cbo and could never have
come together without margo's
persistents leadership.
She recalled margo's long-time
support at the sro collaborative
and service on the task force. She remained a staunch ally of those who were in the community
and margo had a heart of gold
and funny as hell. When she was very realistic did driven to make sure things got done.
You would find yourself up against what seemed an impossible barrier and she would say, let me see what I could do.
In addition to the deep empathy and boldness she brought to her
work, she will be remembered and missed for her style and snarky whit. For those who knew her personally and love her so
deeply, her death is
unfathomable and heartbreaking. For those who knew her as our wise colleague, the loss to the city is profound.
Our city advocates are unhoused
and unsheltered neighbors have
been working to solve
homelessness for years.
For those who worked 24/7 for
homelessness like margo did, we
are endlessly grateful.
May you rest in peace.
>> thank you, supervisor ronen. We will feel her loss.
>> supervisor mar. >> actually -- >> you had more? >> I have more.
>> apologies.
>> thank you.
My second in memorium is for leo handle and I think folks May have read about this in the paper, but I'm asking we ajourn
today's meeting in memory of leo. He was a 94-year-old glenn park resident killed last monday
walking his dog near glenn canyon.
Born in 1925 in austria, he
spent part of his life in a camp
before going to work as a farmer in 1953. He moved to san francisco and eventually moving to sussex
street where he lived from 1967 until he died last week.
In the wake of his death, he was 94 and frequently walking his
dog, making repairs to his house
or ring the economist from cover to cover on his front porch and he would remind his neighbors to move their cars on street-cleaning day and help
them moving their cans after
pick-up and give them fresh tomatoes.
he was dependent and sharp. He devised successful strategies
to buy more than his share of red bull.
Leo's murder is all the move tragic because it feels like it was preventible.
His accused assailant was known to
.As someone with close friends and family who suffer from various mental illnesses, I feel the knee
need to point out that mean with
people with mental illness are not usually violent but I feel compelled to point out our
failure to find and fund humane
ways to compel people into care and regularly threaten the
physical safety of the neighbors is shameful.
In that regard, I am requesting
today a hearing on the impacts of covid-19 on the city's response to the behaviour and
health needs of unhoused people in san francisco.
For the two years I've been on this board and well before I joined, members of this body and
a succession of mayors have
struggled with affecting mental
health crisis on our streets. The behavioral health audit to the appointment of the director of mental health reform, the
mayor's convening a task force,
to supervisor's work on mental
health sf, a walk down market street will make painfully clear that we are not doing better.
We are doing far worse and as we
dig in for protracted battle against this new public health emergency, it is plain we need to revisit approaches to managing our preexisting public health crisis.
i am asking for this hearing to give other responsible departments the opportunity to
explain both how the city's covid-19 response complicated
the behavioral health needs of unhoused people and explain
their best thinking on how to adapt behavioral health services
to address the growing chaos.
I am also requesting this hear mindful the $2 billion deficit our city faces threatens our ability to make many of the healthy
mental health investments we needed two months eight. In one sense, this should not be that hard. We need the right places and the
we need the right people, people who can effectively intervene in the lives of individuals
suffering episodes of psychosis
or extreme intoxication in
public spaces, safe places where
people can recover and to
provide ongoing case management
and places for people who need a
supervised time-out over a longer period of time that is neither a jail cell or hospital bed.
In san francisco, in 2020, these things are not optional. They are essential and even as
we prepare to slay every sacred
cow in sight, we must prioritize these investments. Some of us have had the experience of visiting friends
or family in
, being in the presence of psychosis is alarming, even
in a therapeutic setting and yet today in san francisco, too many residents are having that
experience by stepping out for a walk. We must change that daily reality and we cannot wait. I request that this hearing be scheduled in conjunction with a
hearing on sb1045 limitation I requested earlier this year for which we have delayed for scheduling over the last several
months.
The hearings are related that
the --
Indiscernible: . >> covid will, of course, make everything harder but it's time to restart this conversation.
The rest I submit.
>> thank you, supervisor.
Soup store mar.
Supervisor mar. >> colleagues, today I'm introducing legislation to reenact the emergency ordinance to temporarily require private
employers with 500 or more
employees during the public health emergency related to covid-19.
As you May recall, the original emergency ordinance was adopted
unanimously by the board and signed by mayor breed on April 19th. Instantly making some 200,000 people in san francisco eligible to receive two additional weeks of paid leave if they are sick,
need to take care of a family
member, unable to work because
of shelter in place or have a
compromised immune system. That emergency ordinance is set to expire soon so the legislation I'm introducing
today will extend as critically
support for workers for an additional 60 days. I'm introducing a resolution urging state and federal
government to include large nonprofit organizations in upcoming covid-19 relief packages. Large nonprofits were eligible for paycheck funding from the
care's act due to employing more
than 500 employees.
Good will of san francisco and ymc amount of san francisco provide critical services to thousands of individuals per day in our city and the surrounding bay area. The covid-19 pandemic has
increased the demand for food assistance, mental health services, child-care and other
critical services. Organizations like sf good will
and ymc amount of san francisco
deliver their respected
ministers without full
dependence on government grants.
They have had to severely curtail business operations and services to the community in
order to comply with the shelter-in-place order. Those organizations continue to
receive funding through private donations and regional and financial hardships have made it
difficult to continue to provide communities with critical
services in the long-term. Unfortunately, the new hero's act outlines the support necessary for the industry by removing the 500 employee cap on the size of nonprofits eligible
for ppp loans, small business
limit on non-payroll expenses, deferring principle and payments
for one year up from six months
and creating a 25% set-aside for ppp funding for nonprofit and
half of that would be for nonprofits for 500 or fewer
employees and the other half with more. These provisions in the new
hero's act will ensure organizations like ymc amount of san francisco and sf good will obtain forgivable loans to provide critical services to the
community and put people back to work. The resolution I'm introducing
today urges the U.S. Senate to
pass the $3 trillion hero act to include amendments in the care's
act to expand access to benefits by large nonprofit organizations. The rest I submit. >> thank you. >> supervisor peskin.
>> thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm submitting a let end of inquiry to the san francisco police department, the department of emergency management, the planning department, the public works and
the department of public health
to ask if any staff entered into
nondisclosure agreements or ndas or otherwise participated in the
public agency's advisory council
convened by the next social media platform as reported in the press.
Aside from the transparency
concerns regarding mda's signed by government employees and
government officials, I want to understand whether the city and county of san francisco is
involved in any way with
legitimatizing or financially
benefiting a platform under the
pretense of sharing helpful information among neighbors and
community members that has been
criticized for also spreading false rumors, incidents of crime which happened in my district
recently on a number of
occasions as well as being a
quote, hotbed for racial
profiling as numerous media outlets have reported. They have come to rely on information but if the city and county of san francisco is, in
fact, using public funds for
employee's time to provide content, I think it is important that the board understand the
extent and implications of doing
so and to have conversations about whether we're diffusing
other means of public notice that are not vulnerable to the
same abusive algorithms. But what's particularly
important, we understand whether there are city employees
entering into nondisclosures with this or other platforms.
And I will submit a number of
other pieces of legislation that
I will not speak to and I do
want to thank my staff, calvin
yann and Mr. Gulo and the folks from the department of
public health and the chinese hospital for their rapid
response on testing to folks in chinatown as we have had outbreaks and I want to thank
them for setting up testing on the streets this morning.
Thank you to dph and chinese hospital and finally, colleagues, I would like to ajourn today's board meeting in
the memory of rich aliotto, who
grew up in the sunset district,
went, and spent his entire
career at fisherman's wharf.
He was exactly my age and passed
away suddenly at the age of 55
at his house on May 24th.
He is survive by his loving wife
of 26 years, cheryl, and by his
adoring daughter, stephanie.
He is reuse nighting with his father joseph and brother joe,
who I know well is survived by
his mayor pauline and sister r irk
rita and in-laws and it reads,
we know he will always hold a
special place in the hearts of his family is friends.
The rest I will submit. >> supervisor preston.
>> thank you, Madam Clerk.
I wanted to thank President Yee for your remarks at the start of this meeting. Very much appreciate those.
I have one item to announce
today and I would like to take
this time to say george floyd's name and recognise the thousands across the country who have taken to the streets to protest
the history of racism, police violence and silence and complicity that has gotten us to this place.
For all of those who are protesting for george floyd,
brianna taylor, ahmaud arbery, shawn reed and countless others
who have been taken from racism from us, thank you for your bravery. The murder of george floyd did not just take a life.
It was a punch in the gut of
anyone who cares about humanity. Protesters are exercising their right to protest and have every reason to be angry. Many have experienced a lifetime
of racism topped off by over
three years of a lawless white nationalist President.
Across the country, people feel intense anger and sadness right
now. A police officer kilted george floyd while other officers look on.
None were arrested on the scene despite conclusive video evidence and none would have been arrested were it not for bold protesters taking to the streets for days. The officer expected he would
get away with this and why would he expect differently?
Time and time again, police abuse and kill african-americans
with no consequences.
White supremacy runs so deep in our country. From the daily one-on-one aggressions in parks, streets,
stores and workplaces to the never-ending police violence,
mass incarceration and throughout all levels of government.
The President Of our country is a white supremest and will do
everything to stoke division and invoke and encourage police violence. Despite the temptation to direct our attention to the federal
administration and other cities
as the source of this dehumanizing reality, I would
take the opportunity to look to our own city and acknowledge these systemic problems half
right here at home.
I'm deeply concerned about a san francisco officer using a knee
at or near the neck area of a black teenager.
We need to know the facts of this case and any other in which
anything like the technique used
to restrain and kill george
floyd is used in our city. That incident has prompted me
and others to take a closer look
at our existing borders and regulations regarding the use of fortune by the police
department. Nowhere is this technique
specifically and expolitician explicitly named didn't banned. We need to make crystal clear to officers and the public that the
use of the knee on the neck cannot be tolerated.
I would like to thank our public defender for calling for major
police reforms in a statement yesterday, including calling for the police commission and our
police chief to issue a new general order permitting officers from applying pressure to a person's neck on the ground. I appreciate our public defender's leadership on this and standing with countless
activists who are demanding meaningful reform.
Today, I'm calling for a hearing on law enforcement restraint techniques that restrict
breathing or blood flow and pose a serious risk of injury or death. I'm also working with the city attorney to draft an ordinance
to explicitly ban the knee-to-neck restraint of george floyd in minneapolis. I hope the police commission and police chief will clearly condemn and ban this practise
and I look forward to meeting
with them as we develop this legislation.
But the situation is urgent and we cannot wait. At this moment, I ask colleagues
to tornado the words black lives matter into concrete changes wherever we can and join me in fighting to hold our own police
departments to the highest standards. Our hearing and ordinance will
be one significant step toward concrete meaningful change. The rest I submit. Thank you. >> thank you, supervisor
preston.
Supervisor ronen.
>> one moment, please. Colleagues, today I'm
introducing a resolution to
express the port or assembly
bill 2054 and would enact a
community response to strengthen emergency system's act to promote community-based response to an emergency situation. In san francisco and across the state, police officers are often
relied upon as the first responders for mental health crisis and other situations that arise in our most vulnerable communities.
Not only is it costly to have
police officers act as the first responders to situations that
are better suited for crisis councillors but police presence
May escalate the situation and make the crisis worse.
As we saw with the senseless murder of george floyd and countless deaths before him, calling 9-1-1 for even the slightest thing can be a death
sentence for people of color. Community-based organizations
city-wide have a track record of successfully responding to
emergencies affecting unhoused people, people experiencing mental health crisis and exposed
to community violence and people
experiencing substance abuse and
impacted by natural or climate
disasters.
If passed this would create emergency services to establish
the grant's program to provide
state grants to community-based organizations providing
emergency response to local crises. These scenarios fall on the
shoulders of marginalized
communities of young people of
color and those who are formerly incarcerated.
Ab2054 will ensure community-based organizations
are integrated into crisis response and followup are handled by community organizations that have a deeper knowledge of the issues, trust or relationship with the people and communities involved and specific knowledge and relationships surrounding the emergency.
Our best hope at any police
violence is by promoting community-lead alternatives to policing.
And the rest I submit.
>> thank you, supervisor ronen.
Supervisor safay-rbgs. E. >> thank you, Madam Clerk.
I wanted to do just one in
memorium today for Miss Donna lane.
She was a fierce resident of
district 1. 11. Their office reached out to
President Ye, but I wanted to
let everyone show she was a fierce advocate for social
justice is fought for freedoms and reforms. She was born in atlanta, georgia
and during school years, she graduated with honors from the school system and subsequently went on to howard university,
the university of california, school of social work and san francisco state where she got a
masters in education. She gave bang
back and was the first lady of grace in san francisco, director of women at senior
programs at the booker t. Center and director of community
education, planning project. She directed the
lastly, although there is much
more to say about her great
causes, Miss Lane championed and
whole-hearted by dedicated herself and fought for school integration here in san francisco. She battled prevailing attitudes
that she claims were, in fact, heartbreakingly rough.
And so much of the work that she did in forms of what we're going through today. We were happy to have you, May you rest in power and thank you
for all of your service and what you've done if san francisco and thank you for all of the families reaching out.
The rest I submit.
>> thank you, supervisor safaye. Supervisor stephanie.
>> I want to start by thanking
supervisor hainy with the county veteran's service officer. This is something I've been work on for several months.
As you know, at role call on
April 28th, I introduced a formal letter of inquiry asking for more information about the vacancy. Our human service's agency department reached out to let me
know that the inquiry helped to
clear bureaucratic log jams that impaired the hiring process.
On May 11th, I reported to you again at role call that the
vacancy was posted publically and qualified applicants were invited to apply through May 25th.
The posting has closed and that candidate -- and the candidate interviews began last week and will continue this week.
and also, the human service's agency believes that they will select a candidate to advance to
the department of human resources for fingerprints this friday.
Hsa has requested that the dhr
expedite the fingerprinting process and I want to reiterate
that request here is that we can
quickly fill this vital position and a need for interim director will not be necessary.
I do look forward to filling this vital position very quickly and I want to thank all of the veterans who have reached out
and the veterans I have been
working with and hsa staff who
have been working and the city administrators' office and the department of human resources
for the responsiveness to our questions. The rest I submit. Thank you.
>> thank you, supervisor stephanie.
Next is supervisor walton.
>> thank you, Madam Clerk. I today I have a resolution and
two in memoriums. Will start with today's resolution.
Along with the district attorney
and cosponsors supervisors yee,
preston and peskin, fewer,
hilary ronen and supervisor matt haniney, I'm introductioning a
resolution urging the civil service resolution where in sanfrancisco we will never hire an individual to serve on the
san francisco police department or san francisco sheriff's
department that has a history of
excessive force and any other municipal.
There's been a national crisis
over repeated instances of
police brutality and killings of
black people for persons of color.
To date, there are been 422 black people killed by the police.
There were 27 days in 2019 where
police did not kill someone. Here in san francisco, there have been over 70 officer-involved shootings in the past decade. We net that there's
know there's a long-standing
history of biased especially towards black people starting
from slave patrols to traffic stops.
Now george floyd, mario woods,
oscar grant, eric garner,
michael brown are just among the countless black people and
people of color who have been killed at the hands of law
enforcement.
George floyd most recently, a 46-year-old black man was killed
by a minneapolis police officer
who kneeled on his neck for
eight minutes and 46 seconds
while he struggled to breathe. This police officer had over 17
complaints.
17 complaints against him and
multiple officer-involved shootings. He was permitted to remain on
the police force. In san francisco, recent footage emerged with a police officer using a similar violent tactic
of kneeling on a 19-year-old
black teen during an arrest.
These injustices have gone on
far too long and they continue
to happen. Oftentimes, officers quit when
they have received several
complaints for excess force in a particular city and move on to a new city and go from one city to
the next after being fired.
There is no accountability for the public.
It is important that we do not allow individuals with a proven
track record of misconduct to become a part of any of our law
enforcement bodies in san francisco. It demonstrates officers who kill black people and continue to commit excessive force on
black people and people of color, have a history of
misconduct and excessive force complaints.
We cannot allow these
individuals an opportunity to mistreat san francisco residents.
This is just one small step
towards preventing incidents
like what we have seen in
minneapolis with george floyd.
My first memorium today is for
commissioner lotty tie.
On tuesday afternoon, last week,
commissioner lotty t irk
itus passed
away peacefully in her home at huntersview. Having resided in the neighbor for 25 years, she was a relentless and tow
towering figure.
The southeastern part of san
francisco, district 10, and our nation.
A mother of two, grandmother of
five and champions of countless
others, her legacy is beyond comprehension.
One of the creators of hope sf,
commissioner titus served every
segment of her community for
over three decades with grace,
with kindness, self-lessness and
the un-forgettable smile and
sense of humor.
feeding the hungry, caring for children, leading support
groups, caring for seniors and dealing with community violence and designing public policy.
As a former person in the san francisco authority commissioner
and a devout woman of faith, she
was constantly reminding all of
us to not quit until every
child, youth and family was within our public housing development are achieving
were achieving to the best of
their ability. Miss Titus will be missed. She was a mother and mentor to
us all and we will Miss Our dedication, commitment and smile. She fought for community with a
certain class and dignity that
garnered the results but demonstrated her love. There are very few leaders that
I know that have accomplished
the things that she has for community with such grace and
such a presence that wasn't
harsh but committed and
dedicated and lead to successful outcomes for communities.
And lieu in flowers, tax-deductible contributions May
be made to support the
celebration of life at 1753
carol avenue in san francisco.
Second in memorium today, and I
want to thank President Yee
opening up the meeting for talking about the tragedy for
what has taken place in minneapolis and across this
country for too many years where
black men, people of color have suffered death at the hands of
law enforcement.
This in memorium is in honor of george floyd.
today I stand to honor and
celebrate the life of george floyd.
Video of his murder has been
spread far and wide.
Millions March in the streets in
protest of his death at the
hands of minneapolis police. For george floyd was more than
just a murder victim, he was a devoted father, cheerful
coworker and loving friend to
many.
George floyd was born in north
carolina, grew up in houston and
was nick-named the gentle giant.
Early on by his friends and
school were
.
His classmates described him as
having a quiet personalty but a gentle spirit. George was also an artist,
making music with a hip-hop
group called the screwed up crew.
After living in houston most of his life, george moved to minneapolis in hopes of finding
work and starting a new life. George first worked as a
security guard at a salvation
army store in the city of minneapolis is later worked
driving trucks.
He was known as big floyd.
His coworkers at the bistro
described him as always cheerful, noting that he would
dance badly just to make people laugh.
One of his customers recounted
how much george loved his hugs
from his regulars.
George floyd was also a devoted
father to his 6-year-old
daughter, gianna, and worked incredibly hard to support his
family.
George floyd's black life mattered.
It matter to his friends, his
coworkers and it mattered to his
daughter and family and it
definitely mattered to me.
We were not stockpiling until
his life and all black lives matter to everyone.
The rest I submit.
>> thank you, supervisor walton.
Black lives matter. Mr. President.
>> thank you, Madam Clerk.
I'm going to be introducing a
few items today so bear with me.
The first is -- I would be introducing imperative item,
motion to concurring and declaration of emergency and
motion concurring with
establishing curfew.
Today I am introducing these two things as you .
As you are aware, on sunday the mayor declared a local emergency and established a subsequent
curfew to prevent any further
destruction, destructive incidents like what took place on saturday fight, calling for
an end to police brutality and racial justice.
The board of supervisors has
seven days to act upon the
proclamation of local emergency. Therefore, I am introducing a
motion today to concur in the mayor's proclamation of local
emergency and a second motion to
concur with the establishment of the 8:00 P.M. Curfew in the
interest of keeping the public
safety didn't destruction.
We know there are more actions planned and we respect that.
We stand with their anger and frustration, but we also have a
responsibility to keep our residents safe.
we invited the chief of police,
the sheriff and the mayor to attend this meeting to answer questions and to address any concern taz we
concerns that we May have. Have. This came after the board agenda
and I believe it is in the
interests of the public safety
to act today in concurring with
these measures. We will have the opportunity to discuss when these items are
called later in the agenda. The second thing is I would like
to introduce a resolution
opposing the governor's proposal
to eliminate adult day healthcare and expect day
services. Colleagues, today with the cosponsorship of supervisors
walton and preston, I will be
introducing this resolution
opposing governor newsom's May
revision, proposal to eliminate these services.
These services are the most cost effective community-based
alternative to skilled nursing
facilities, facility care and deliver occupational and other
supports to adults with complex medical, cognitive and psychological conditions.
If approved, the lip nation
elimination of
adhc and cbas will also create
an even larger budget deficit.
As 37,000 participants who lose
the safety net, exponentially shift costs to the healthcare
system due to increased hospitalization, emergency room
visits and a surge in nursing
home emissions.
At the outset of the covid-19
pandemic, the essential service
because it protects the very
people who are most at risk of
covid-19 due to age and
underlying health conditions.
In eight weeks, over 1200 healthcare professionals sprang into act hundred to meet
emergency needs of the adults with chronic conditions and
nurses, social workers and other healthcare team members have
already conducted more than
24,000 covid check-ins and
assessments.
972 thousands related
interventions and services to
ensure that 27,000 seniors and
73,000 care-giving family members remain safe.
In san francisco, stepping-stone
self-help for the ederly
services, the charm of jewish family services operate healthcare organizations. Combine these organizations provide essential care and
services to over 700 ederlies and
700 elders.Dr. Would not
there would not be a center for
integrated care, physical, occupational speech therapy and
other services, including the nutrition counseling.
This will result in the loss of
preventative care including
medical staff to assist with the navigation and translation of
medical services.
Caregivers work a full-time care-giving responsibilities
will not have a safe place to send their loved ones during the day and some will have to quit
their jobs or reduce their hours
in order to cover the quality care that has been provided by these programs.
If the funding of adult day
healthcare centers and a
community-based adult centers is
eliminated, the infrastructure created over 40 years that currently supports these most
frail and at-risk institutions will be decimated.
We can't allow this to happen.
It is essential to keep the
infrastructure intack in san
francisco. The other thing, the third item
I would like to introduce is the
board is this year's board legislative session will be
different, as you know, so it's
about the calendar and we will need to meet and vote on budget deliberations in the month of August, which is typically our
summer recess.
We will be recessing for the
first week of August and we'll be in sessions for the remainder
of that month in order to meet
on obligations on the budget and other policy matters.
I am introducing a motion to
formalize the calendar change, . Board committees will able to
meet at the discretion of the
chair and in consultation with their committee members.
I want to thank all of you for your flexibility and support for
these changes on the calendar.
Please stand by: .
>> President
>> President Yee: and that's
all I'll say for now, and I believe that there are some my
colleagues that might want to
make comments on this last introduction.
>> Clerk: any names on the roster?
I don't see any at this point.
>> President Yee: I thought supervisor haney, did you want to say something?
>> Clerk: okay.
i see supervisor peskin.
>> Supervisor Peskin: thank you, Madam Clerk. Thank you, supervisor yee, and
I want to thank supervisors
haney and fewer and you, President Yee, for the
discussions that we've had that
started, as you said, before covid-19 and continued to the present.
I look forward to the passage
of this measure that looks to scale up as the economy
recovers and to make sure that san francisco survives fiscally
during this pandemic, and I
look forward to getting this on the ballot and having the voters of san francisco pass it in November.
Thank you for introducing this item.
>> President Yee: okay. Supervisor haney?
>> Supervisor Haney: thank you, President Yee.
It's been great to work with you and supervisor fewer, as
well as the controller and the mayor.
I think the need to continue
this work around reforming our
gross receipts tax and making
it more equitable around our
citizens and businesses is necessary.
I think we are facing a massive budget shortfall, so looking at
our tax structure, making sure we're able to provide basic services for our residents is critical, and we know that the
gross receipts tax has had some
issues, is in need of serious re reform, and this is one of the tools that we have to work with
the mayor to ensure that we
have the resources to maintain
critical services like the very
services that residents are relying on right now that are keeping people safe. So I hope that we can get this
done together with the mayor and, ultimately, this is
something that needed to be
done before and is even more critical and essential now, so
thank you for your leadership.
>> President Yee: supervisor fewer?
>> Supervisor Fewer: yes, thank you, President Yee.
I want to join my colleagues
supervisors haney and peskin and thank you in thanking you for this.
As you know, we are facing a
huge deficit, and I think that
this opportunity to finally
clear up all our issues around
payroll and gross receipts tax
is an opportunity to create revenue. So thank you, President Yee,
and I look forward with my colleagues to be working on this issue.
>> President Yee: thank you.
The rest I submit.
>> Clerk: thank you. And then, supervisor fewer, introducing new business?
>> Supervisor Fewer: yes.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, I think racial and economic justice and the need for systemic change is at the
forefront of all of our minds today.
I, along with supervisor shamann walton am proud to introduce the people over profits ordinance which aims to
make permanent and build on
reforms voted last year in san francisco to make all jail
calls free and end the marking
up of items in the jail
commissary or store.
These reforms last year were
reflected in the city budget.
One year later, I am proud to
work with colleagues to codify our commitment to permanently
end the practice of generating revenue from incarcerated
people and their families. Previously, the practice of san
francisco was to markup jail
phone calls and commissary
prices to generate revenue for jail operations. Virtually every jail and the
prison in the country does this. This lays a heavy kburd burden on the
families and support network on incarcerated people, one they
could not bear them and are not
likely to bear now in the midst
of our economic crisis.
Items in the commissary store
like coffee or food items were
marked up to generate revenue for the jail.
In total, we were extracting $1.7 million from families with
members in the jail each year.
As we know, the city is facing a significant deficit, and departments have been asked to
make reductions in the last two years.
In the last two years, law
enforcement raised their
dependence on generating revenue from incarcerated people and their families.
We do not want to repeat the
mistakes of the past, even if
we are attempted to do so during tough budget times.
We also don't want to cut
funding that keep people in the jail whole. things like parenting classes,
substance abuse classes, and
more, are critical to
supporting people as they are released from jail and go back into their communities.
Second, the loved ones who help
people in jail and provide
money for their phone calls are
the ones who feel the financial toll.
80% of jail phone calls and commissary costs were paid for
by incarcerated people's
support network. Low-income people are shown to contract the virus at higher rates in the general population
and also are more likely to get laid off. We cannot ask them to bear the
burden of filling our budget
gaps, and third, as our jails explore offering other communications and services
like video calls and tablets, I aye ipads to incarcerated people,
the typical service is to
charge high prices to generate revenue for jail profit.
We want to ensure that these
are provided for free or at the lowest cost possible for jail
inmates and their family.
I want to applaud the sheriff's department for their alliance
on this issue, and I also want
thank mayor greed for championing this effort, and
the office of the treasurer and
tax collector, and the san
francisco justice coalition for
collaborating with my office on this resolution. This should be the norm, and
this legislation will help pave
the way for other municipalities to follow suit.
I am also introducing a resolution in support of
expanded access to safe drinking water through hydration stations across the city. High quality drinking water is an essential need for the physical health and well-being of san franciscans and very
much a basic fundamental need for public health at this moment in time.
While drinking water was
accessible at places like our libraries and recreation
centers, the need for drinking water exists outside of
buildings and outside of
business hours and drinking
stations in indoor businesses
and outdoor stations helps
ensure that we are making sure
of the health of our community.
The higher consumption of
sugary sweetened beverages of
color particularly in communities of color and low-income communities have
been associated with diabetes,
dental cavity and cardio and
metabolic diseases and obesity.
This is work to be -- I'm eager to
look at increasing hydration
stations throughout a multidepartmental lens
alongside public and partner
health equity in a cohesive equity marched
and lastly, please add me as a sponsor to President Yee's
resolution about the governor's' statement. The rest I submit.
>> Clerk: thank you, supervisor fewer. Mr. President?
>> President Yee: thank you,
Madam Clerk, and thank you,
supervisor fewer, for cosponsoring. I had indicated that supervisor safai had indicated he was
going to be a cosponsor to this item.
>> Supervisor Safai: yeah, no, you took the words out of my mouth. Thank you, President Yee. Yeah, I just wanted to make
sure I was on there as a cosponsor.
>> President Yee: okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. Colleagues, as I mentioned earlier in the meeting, I was
going to take this imperative item out of order, item number
35, and out of respect for the
sheriff and also for our police
chief to be here, they said they would like to be here to answer any questions about it,
but we need to make sure that
we are available for the public
outside as soon as possible.
So before I even get started,
this is kind of unusual in the
sense that there's really two items here that we're talking
about, and taking it out of
order, the public comments are a little confusing at this point where it fits in.
So if you don't mind, deputy
chief or deputy city attorney ann pearson, can you kind of
talk us through, I mean just so
I know, like, if the steps are correct? >> sure. Good afternoon, everyone. President Yee asked me to say
just a couple of words about the process for the board's
consideration of these two motions.
One motion would concur in the mayor's declaration of an emergency, and the second would
concur in the mayor's action to
impose a curfew, both imposed on May 31.
When the mayor declares a state
of emergency, state law
requires that the board concurs
within seven days, and if they
don't do so within the seven
days, that declaration would proclamate.
If the board does not concur in the declaration of emergency in
the next seven days, the declaration would automatically concur this coming saturday. The mayor has issued an order
to address the emergency, which
is the curfew, in this case,
also issued May 31. The mayor's curfew will remain in place until it's terminated by the mayor or the board refuses to concur in that action or the emergency terminates. So because these motions were not on today's agenda, in order
for them to be considered by the board today, the board
first must adopt findings under the sunshine ordinance and the brown act. The clerk will call the two motions separately so that you
can consider for each motion the need to take action arose after the agenda was posted and if there's an immediate need to take action.
And then, I understand that she
will later take public comment
on both motions together, and
I'm happy to answer questions
that might arise about that process.
>> President Yee: okay.
I will try my best and I hope I have this straight about the process.
>> Supervisor Haney: I have a question.
>> President Yee: about the process?
>> Supervisor Haney: yes.
>> President Yee: okay. Supervisor haney?
>> Supervisor Haney: so if I'm
clear, if we vote on this, vote
it down, and reject it, could you clarify on this? Does it terminate immediately?
>> so you'll be asked to take two votes. If the board determines that the motion satisfies the brown
act and the sunshine ordinance and you take action on them, if
you take action on the mayor's
declaration of emergency, if
you vote it down, as you said, or if you refuse to concur on it, the declaration of emergency will terminate right
away, as will any actions taken
pursuant to that authority.
If you approve the mayor's
declaration of emergency, it
will continue until such time
as she decides to terminate it
or you decide to terminate it.
>> Supervisor Haney: so another question. So if we were to vote it down -- take action on it and
then vote it down, would the
mayor be able to issue another
order like a curfew and emergency order that was
changed in some way but it s largely similar pretty much immediately?
What are her intentions on just replicating the orders since she can issue ordered in the
interim that go into effect in
the interim? Any new order or declaration of emergency that she issues would similarly require concurrence by the board.
So if she were to issue a new order, it would have to come back to this board for concurrence.
If you have refused to concur in one, I presume the board
would choose to do the same if she were to declare a similar declaration of emergency.
>> Supervisor Haney: but if we were not to concur on this version, and because of that,
it would terminate immediately, could she then come back and
say okay, it's going to come
into order at 9:00, and it
would be until we come back a week from now. Can she do that? >> I don't think she would be precluded from taking new actions and issue new orders that were, in her opinion, necessary to meet the emergency?
>> Supervisor Haney: so just so I'm clear, if we were to vote
this down, and we had certain reasons that either we felt there was something wrong with
it or it was too broad or whatever, she could issue another one that would address some of those things that would go into effect immediately that would then have to come back for concurrence, as well. >> that's correct.
>> Supervisor Haney: okay.
Thank you.
>> President Yee: supervisor peskin? >> Supervisor Peskin:
supervisor haney just asked the question that I was just going
to ask, so asked and answered.
>> President Yee: supervisor walton?
>> Supervisor Walton: my
question has been addressed.
>> Supervisor Peskin: there's
no way to amend.
There's no way to say we would
like this to be continuous, but
we would like it to end after
five days or three days?
There's no way for us to amend? >> that's correct.
>> Supervisor Peskin: so if we
do not act, it terminates in
seven days unless the mayor
ends it earlier or we have an
emergency meeting to end it earlier. >> that's correct.
>> Supervisor Peskin: so our
choices are concur, reject, or take no action.
If we reject, it terminates immediately.
If we concur, it goes on until
either the mayor or the board terminate, and if we take no
action, it terminates on its
own on saturday. >> that's exactly right.
>> Supervisor Peskin: thank you.
>> President Yee: okay. Thank you.
So let's do the first part of this first.
For the emergency order, let's take the emergency finding for the sunshine order for that. Is there a motion and a second
that finds this motion has a
serious injury finding?
Failure to approve the motion
today would do serious injury
to the public interest and thus meeting the standards of the sunshine ordinance?
Do I have a motion?
>> Supervisor Mandelman: move, mandelman.
>> President Yee: okay. Is there a --
>> Supervisor Safai: second.
>> President Yee: second by?
>> Supervisor Safai: safai.
>> President Yee: okay. There's been a motion and seconded, so I believe you need to have roll call on that.
>> Clerk: Mr. President, are
you taking both the sunshine
findings and the brown act findings together for this particular item?
And just for purposes of the public, this is a motion to
concur in the proclamation of
local emergency?
>> President Yee: right.
>> Clerk: okay.
>> President Yee: so what we're going to do is have a vote on
the sunshine finding ordinance first, then, we're going to
have the brown act finding on the emergency order.
And then, we'll go back and do
the same thing for the finding
on the curfew order and so forth. Is that clear.
>> Clerk: okay. Yes.
>> President Yee: okay.
So let's go for it.
>> Clerk: so for roll call votes. On the motion made by
supervisor mandelman and
seconded by supervisor safai on the sunshine finding -- [Roll Call]
>> Clerk: there are 11 ayes.
>> President Yee: okay.
So the that -- the sunshine
ordinance is in play here passes.
Let's have roll call on the brown act.
>> Clerk: okay.
>> President Yee: is there a
motion that finds that the need
to take action came after the
the -- to the attention of the
board after the issuance of the agenda?
>> Supervisor Preston: motion.
>> President Yee: okay.
There a second?
>> Supervisor Peskin: peskin.
>> Clerk: okay.
There is a motion by supervisor
preston and seconded by
supervisor peskin that the
action meets the brown act. On that motion --
[Roll Call]
>> Clerk: there are 11 ayes.
>> President Yee: okay. Without action, these findings are approved unanimously. Okay. Now for the second item, which
is the curfew order, can I have
similar role call on whether or
not this passes for sunshine ordinance?
>> Supervisor Peskin: Mr. President, can we call sunshine and brown act together?
>> Clerk: I think that's fine,
Mr. President, just as long as the site items are called separately for the final vote.
>> President Yee: thank you for the suggestion.
Go ahead and call the sunshine
ordinance and the brown act findings together.
>> Clerk: for the curfew, are
we utilizing supervisor
mandelman and supervisor safai for the first and second?
>> President Yee: yes.
>> Clerk: okay. [Roll Call]
>> Clerk: there are 11 ayes.
>> President Yee: okay. Without objection, the motion
is approved unanimously.
So right now, I'd like to
thank -- I'm hoping you're
still here -- chief scott and
sheriff miyamoto, and for, I
believe, the mayor's office,
sophia kitner will be representing that.
So I will start, and if you, chief scott or sheriff miyamoto, if you would like to
say anything before we get
started, you May, or let's just
go right into questioning. >> President Yee, thank you
chief scott. First of all, I would like to say thank you to the board for giving us this opportunity to update you all and giving you a
status on the civil unrest
that's happening around the country, particularly in our
city. And I know this has been a very trying time, so I -- whatever format you would like, but what
I would ask, if I could take a
few minutes to provide an overview and set the context,
and maybe that will answer some
of your questions beforehand. I think the presentation will
be more organized that way, and then, I don't know if --
sheriff miyamoto May want to do
the same thing, but I'm happy to take any of your questions
at that time, but I think to
start questions without an
overview would do this an injustice.
>> President Yee: I think point well taken.
Go ahead, chief scott.
>> thank you, President Yee,
and I want to thank you for a job well done.
I know I've talked to each one of you personally over the last few days, and I just want to thank you for your support. it means a lot to me, and
before I go further, let me
tell you why we're here in the
first place.
Mr. George floyd, killed by minneapolis police officer is
yet another example of an african american man killed in
this case by the police that are supposed to protect and serve him. This is not the first, and we
know that there's a history of it. Let me just say that out front.
I will also say, along with all
of you, I am outraged at the
whole affair that this man lost
his life in this manner.
There are protests all over the
world, but in our city, we've had civil unrest and protests all across the country, too
many to name in this inquiry.
I'll just be quick here about
the patterns that we're seeing
and our city of san francisco. Typically, what we've seen
since last tuesday-wednesday,
when this news startsed to go across the nation, is protests that are happening, mainly peaceful, with people expressing their first
amendment rights with what's
happening over this situation,
whether violent or nonviolent.
Usually, the violent starts with violence on police
officers, and escalates to either objects being thrown at officers -- last night, we had several officers shot across
the country, police cars being burned, police stations being burned down.
We've seen it all in this particular sequence of events.
And then, it escalates further
usually into extensive property damage with property being set
on fire, and this is a widespread, and this is a definite pattern that we're seeing across the country.
Now what makes it so
complicated is you have two
sets of people out there.
You have people who want to do
peaceful protests, and then, you have the criminal element out there mixed in, which makes it difficult to police.
In our city, we fared rather well over the first few days
after this news broke. When we moved into the weekend, things turned.
On saturday, we had a protest
that started out peaceful about
3:30 or so, found its way to
the hall of justice. Those people began to move through the streets of san
francisco -- mostly peacefully.
We had a little vandalism, name calling, that sort of thing.
Made its way to the garment
district, a few looting incidents, but mostly peaceful.
Once it got there, it grow
exponentially, to the number of about 5,000 people.
It moved from the financial
district, and as the day moved on, the group became
increasingly hostile, and by night fall, that group turned to violence. Violences which included
officers being assaulted with
directs, incendiary devices
such as molotov cocktails.
We had just really a chaotic situation here.
In the midst of this, around
8:30 or so, the people that
were in that crowd that were
there to do harm to the city
began to break into buildings
and shatter windows of businesses, including the
westfield mall.
Crowds got into the westfield mall and immediately began to set fires.
We had officers at the mall, but they got overrun basically. When they got in, they started to set fires.
So now, we've got fires in the mall, and the mall being
looted, and we've got fire to
put out the fires number one and apprehend the people that are in the mall. As you all know, we've all been to the mall, the mall is really, healey huge.
So now, we have a significant
amount of resources to secure
the perimeter and to do a slow
and methodical search of that
mall, so find out if there are
any looters that are loitering
and to find out who is in that mall.
It was a significant, significant policing event at that point.
At the same time, we started to get other movement in union square, in and around that
area, in and around the area of
civic center plaza, so it was a significant challenge there. Through the course of the
night, the businesses in that area suffered significant
damages, significant losses, which we're still capturing
right now to try to get an assessment.
I can tell you just from talking to the people that were
out there many, many near misses where people were nearly run over by a car. Because as this went on and people started to find out
about it, vehicles start today
today -- started to converge on
the area, and we saw things
like a car waiting on the
corner, and the looter came out with the merchandise.
They went down to the next
corner, and another looter came out with merchandise.
Officers and people that were
there lawfully and unlawfully
nearly hit by cars coming in and out of there.
The good news is that nobody was killed, but this was a significant incident, and the
damage was significant done that night.
We -- going into sunday, the
mayor -- and I'd like to thank
her, really, for her leadership
because the mayor decided to declare a state of emergency
and implement a curfew order,
and I'm going to tell you, the advise
advice that I gave the mayor that night as police chief and my presentation.
My take was what happened on
saturday night if we didn't do
something and give orpolice force more tools to deal with
this situation -- give our
police force more tools to deal with, this situation would have
been like what we had on saturday night.
The mayor implemented the order
that went into effect sunday at 8:00 P.M. Now, in addition, the mayor requested through the state mutual aid.
That mutual aid was granted by
governor newsom, and I'd like
to thank the state and the
governor for the mutual aid.
We received 200 deputy sheriffs and police officers have around the state on sunday to -- from around the state on sunday to
assist us in our efforts here in san francisco. All days off for police officers in the city of san
francisco have been called on sunday, and on sunday evening, we deployed. Now on sunday even, there were protests that went on, significant protests, and for
the most part again, they
started out peaceful.
As nightfall fell, we started
to see the escalation in the violence. The one protest that remained
in place at 8:00, the biggest
one was in civic center plaza,
probably about 200 or so people.
One of the captains read the
disbursal order and the curfew,
that if anybody stayed past 8:00, they were in violation of
the law and the curfew order. He read that several times and gave people the opportunity to leave.
A lot of people took advantage
of it and left, but some people stayed,liking almost
immediately violent.
From the air, we saw they
started to move down market street.
This is after 8:00, after curfew. That group, there was at least one attempt to loot a store --
I think it's larkin and grove.
Because of our deployment and officers, we were actually able to arrest that individuals on the spot and prevent that store from being hit.
Also, we started to see an increase in vandalism, an
increase in assaults on officers almost immediately
after that disbursal order was
read, two officers were
assaulted. One by a stun gun type of
device, and the other was physically.
Mind you, sunday, there were still businesses that were in the process of boarding up, and I'll get to that in a second, and I think it's really
important, the point that I'm
going to make here.
When the windows were shattered
and businesses were looted on
sunday morning, we've been in
this emergency operations
configuration for several months.
We've made it a point to not
let san franciscans -- [Inaudible] >> much of the graffiti had
already been cleaned up with help from our local businesses and D.P.W. What we wanted to do as a city,
and I know you all are supportive in this type of
effort is to be resilient.
After an effort like this, the
people who went back to that area sunday, there was still damage that was very visible,
but what they did not see was a
union square area with graffiti
all over it, with trash all
over it, with glass everywhere.
What they saw was a city already cleaned up, bouncing back, and being retailient. I thank the mayor for their leadership on that, and I thank
the city departments and
everybody that works with us.
Those protesters, after the curfew was read, and they started to go down to market
street and do what they were doing, we had the resources
that we needed to keep the city safe.
Now we arrested in that first
group 37 individuals.
Those 37 individuals who were arrested, among that group, we found a handgun on one individual with an extended magazine. Somebody tossed a backpack, and
we found fireworks and
explosives and incendiary-type devices.
Had we not had this curfew, the position that we would have been in, we would not have
known about that handgun and those devices until either
somebody was shot or shot at, or those devices were used against a business or somebody else. That gave us the ability to get
in front of us.
So this is.1 that I want to really weigh on the ball in
terms of how this curfew is helpful.
During the night, there was another group that we read the
disbursal order to that were attempting to
attempting to assemble.
We were able to arrest 47 out of that group. What all was said and done, we
had 87 arrests for curfew violations.
Sunday night by 10:30 P.M., san francisco streets were
absolutely quiet and peaceful,
a 180
change from thursday and friday nights. The biggest changes in my opinion were we had the resources, the officers, and
the additional officers made all the difference in the world.
Second, the curfew order.
So I want to wrap this portion up by saying this. As we see what's happening
around the country and in this area, this is not over.
We need to know when it's time
to lift the curfew and get back to normal or whether we stay in this configuration until we
feel a sense of safety and order.
My professional opinion on this
for you to consider is this: these events are very, very difficult to predict.
We know there's going to be protests. We had one today, and I think it went peacefully and ended up all good.
We know we have protests coming up. We know that most of them -- any of you who have been on social media can see the same
thing that I'm seeing.
There's all kinds of hate, all kinds of craziness about people
saying what they're going to come to san francisco and do.
We don't know what's real about that, we don't know what's not real, but we need to be prepared.
If all of these cities are
having issues, all different areas, a lot of these people in these situations are mobile. They can get in their car and get to where they need to be in
a hurry. We need to be prepared in this city and give our police department and sheriff's department a chance. The two points that I want to
make before I turn it over to sheriff miyamoto is this.
what we see in this country is
we don't get or ask for help until our city is burning down, and you guys have heard me say
this before, and I'll say it
proudly because I learned my
lesson early in my career in
terms of being involved in the 1992 riots in L.A. Where many people died.
I got to live through that and witness that.
I'll tell you this: that city didn't get the help until it was too late.
We, in my opinion, do not want to be that city. In my opinion, it's just
backwards thinking in my opinion.
It's waiting until you have a city in shum ambles and then you ask for help.
What I want to do -- I've given the mayor my advice and
counsel, is to stay in front of this, just like we did with covid, and that's the other
thing that I want to bring up. We are still in the midst of a
global pandemic that has killed r7
47 san franciscans and over 1 million globally.
Everybody has a right to exercise their first amendment.
I get it, and I'm an american
just like the rest of you. I know people want to express themselves, but these are the
things that we have to weigh heavy.
>> President Yee: chief scott, thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> President Yee: I want to give the sheriff a chance to speak. There's several of my colleagues that want to ask
questions, and I recognize it,
but I want to give sheriff
miyamoto the opportunity to
make some statements.
>> thank you very much. >> thank you, President Yee,
for allowing me to come and appear before the board.
I will say that I'm on board and support all the decision points to this point and as is the case of all our operations here in san francisco, we're always in support of public
safety efforts here as a public safety family.
So the things that the chief
said, you know, we echo those same sentiments in regards to the many activities.
Officers and deputies on the
street, we have a sergeant in addition to the blunt object,
the skate boards and stuff, we had an officer on saturday, who was just talking to somebody and letting his guard down was pepper sprayed by that individual, as well, and
injured as a result.
And this came not from a
violent act in terms of us dealing with people, but
somebody who ambushed them
under normal circumstances.
Our focus, as the chief
mentioned, isn't on the first amendment act, isn't on the
demonstrations and protests in
regard to that behavior.
We want people to voice their frustrations and share their emotions
emotions over what they have,
as well. But when the acts turn violent, that's when we have very strong public safety concerns.
The chief also mentioned covid which is on the back of
everyone's mind.
One of our primary concerns in the covid crisis is the prevention of an outbreak to people who can't protect
themselves during such an outbreak. Our in-custody population.
I want to say over the last couple of days -- and I'll cover saturday, sunday, and
monday -- our spike in arrests
that resulted in bookings
occurred on saturday -- on
saturday night for sunday and sunday morning.
We were looking at statistics
which reflected, you know, I think on the first day, which
was referenced as the 30, about two thirds of those who were actually booked into our system
were residents of S.F., of san francisco. On saturday, when we had a
spike, we had over 50 people arrested, 38 booked. About half were from san francisco, and just the other day, we had maybe a third from san francisco.
So we do see a change in some of the data regarding people who are being booked and arrested. We have a perception, and I
know that it was fueled by some media concerns about people coming in from outside. This is occurring in all
locations, all jurisdictions, all counties and cities. There is a fluidity to some of
the activities, and there
appears to be an organized
effort to some of these activities. Today, our department is
sending a few people over to oakland to help them with a
mutual aid request that we received from region two. We still stand ready to support our public safety efforts here
in san francisco, so we're not
affected by the three squads that we're sending over there.
This is happening all over, as the chief was saying about things.
I do want to mention, about the
bookings, chief mentioned over
87 arrests on sunday night for
activities related to curfew violation and potential looting and criminal acts.
What we did with those individuals, of those number of
bookings or arrested, we
actually cited and released 64
of those individuals, so a majority of those people that
were actually arrested on those infractions were released and
not a part of our jail population other than just being held for a few hours until we processed them. So there were no immediate impacts on the jail population regarding those arrests. Over time our count has grown somewhat, but right now, we
start at about 53% capacity,
and that's with the utilization
of all three jail cell capacities. We are able to maintain social distancing right now, minimize
exposures for people coming in
into that population, and that's all I have for now in
the interests of making sure
there's time for questions.
>> President Yee: thank you, sheriff.
And I don't know, Miss Kitner,
if you're there, if there's any
statement you want to make for
the mayor. Okay. If not --
>> no, I do not want to make a
statement. We are following the guidelines of the public health advisory
given by the chief.
>> President Yee: okay.
So first up is supervisor peskin.
>> Supervisor Peskin: thank you, President Yee.
A couple of questions through
the President To chief scott. I've hered here for rodney
king, I was here for 101
california, and I cannot request in my -- I was here for
rodney king, I was here for 101 california, and I cannot remember in my days anything like this.
I surveyed the damage on sunday
morning, which was primarily concentrated in the northeast
area of the city that I've had
the honor of representing, most
of that in midmarket that's
built into the 6th
supervisorial district, lower polk corridor.
So needless to say the northeast corridor was hit
pretty hard, specifically, in and around union square. That said, it's my understanding that there needs
to be no declaration of emergency to activate mutual
aid, and indeed, that has been
activated, and that's what got
the 200 additional troops that
was activated on sunday and
active sunday night.
It's my presumption that
anybody who is on the street is violating a curfew, that P.D. Has been directed to do that
with an appropriate and gentle hand.
But my question through the President To chief scott, it's not enough to control the kind
of violence and looting and vandalism that we all
experienced on saturday night?
>> President Yee: chief scott?
>> yes.
Yes, sir, and supervisor peskin.
The difference is to be
proactive instead of reactive.
What I mean by that -- but I'm
going to try to be brief and
I'm going to try to be as succinct as I can. When you have a crowd, and some
of that crowd is peaceful, law abiding, other people in that crowd or not, there's really
nothing you can do when people
are assembling within their first amendment right except wait on something to happen.
And what the sur few order does
for us as a tool to get orders back to our city is it's illegal for them to be there on the first place.
Now most law abiding people went home. They left.
The people that remain, some were still not there to do
damage, but a lot of the people there were.
What it allows us to do is get
in front of this and be proactive.
Because if it were not for
that, we would not know about that type of explosive
potentially until there's an event, and you're reacting.
So it's a tool.
I've heard supervisor peskin, and you're very active with the police department.
It allows us to get in front of it, rather than be behind and be reactive.
That's important, when you have
emotions right now in our nation, when you have what
you're seeing -- I haven't
turned on the news lately, but
when I have turned on the news,
I see the protests going on in our country.
>> Supervisor Peskin: listen, I
get it, and it could always be
a great tool in tough times, and I do want to acknowledge and appreciate the work that
you and your officers and the deputy sheriffs have been doing.
I know it's been very, very tough, given rightfully why everybody is so any. Gry, so I
acknowledge that, but frankly, it's an extraordinary thing in our first amendment based society to do this.
And I realize that these are doubly extraordinary times
between covid-19 and what is playing out in the streets of san francisco and cities around the country and around the world.
But -- and I know you don't
have a crystal ball, chief, but
this can't go on for very long.
I mean, can you look into that
crystal ball that you don't
have -- I have great misgivings
around allowing -- in the world of uncertainty that we're
living with in covid-19, I'm reluctant to have this go on for an unknown number of days.
Do you have a sunset date in
mind with this? >> yes. What I will say is we know there's potentially a very large protest tomorrow that we
know about that has the
potential to be problematic.
We have information that it could evolve.
Beyond that, I don't think we have anything. I think this is one of those situations where we really have
to be thoughtful and get a
sense of what's going on.
When other cities around us are
going off, and a lot of these folks are very mobile -- right
now, I think our surrounding air
areas are all under curfew orders. I think just like with covid, we act in unison, which is very important -- not that we have to do what everybody else is doing, but I think it's very important here. Because if we're the only ones
that don't have a curfew when
everybody else does, I can --
it's pretty pretty elementary
for me to predict where the problems are.
I think a lot of it, for my opinion, is when we see a pattern of things really cooling down -- since sunday, we're good.
Now, we're on the third day
since the curfew went into effect. I know this can't go on too much longer, and I respect that. One of the considerations for
you all May be to expand the
hours maybe to later at night, 10:00, 11:00, so people can get on with their business, whatever the howevers May be.
It goes for the next phase of
this, and then -- the hours May be.
It goes for the next phase of
this, and then, whatever May come next.
We had a spike of violence across this country last night
that it was like a resurgence of a violence, and a lot of it
aimed at police officers, to be
quite frank with you, that we hadn't seen on sunday or monday.
There's a lot of things going
on out there, but I think we have to blood count
look at what's going on
around us and not make this
decision in a vacuum in san francisco.
>> Supervisor Peskin: thank you, chief can . We are definitely in a region,
but before I sign off, I will leave my colleagues with a final thought based on what the chief just said.
As we outlined at the beginning of this imperative item, we
have three choices to accept,
concur, reject, or if we take
no action, the emergency ceases
by function of law after seven days.
I'm inclined to do that, and if
there is reason for the mayor,
then, to reup it, it would come back before the board next
tuesday, but that May be the best way to go. I don't feel like I want to sign a blank check. [Please stand by]
To be reinstated.
If the situation dictates that. I think we have to be careful about that. That's my proposal. I don't think anybody wants this to just go on forever.
This is impacting us all. >> some of the other cities and counties have set a particular day when it ends.
Some of the other cities and counties actually have it
required to be renewed on a daily basis or every couple of days, and that's not what we
have in front of us. I appreciate that. You all have really focused on the behavior that we're trying
to prevent, which is the violent behavior, the destructive bhooifr, and both of you --
behavior, and both of you really
spoke out about the need to
support peaceful protest. It's my understanding that this curfew forbids peaceful protest after 8 P.M.
I saw a video that was put out there by media of hundreds of
sfaers coming in and arresting people in city hall last night, at least the reporters who were
there who were said we're overwhelmingly peaceful.
Why do we have an order that
actually prohibits peaceful
protest that I think, as you said, really many of us are trying to protect and support right now.
It does seem like this order,
and correct me if I'm wrong, makes it illegal for you to step outside of your home and stand on your sidewalk and express your mind about what's happening in the world. You can be arrested for that
under this order. Is that not correct? >> to be taken literally, yes,
it is correct, but let me answer
your question about the peaceful protests piece.
The order does not make an
exemption for protests after 8:00. that is correct. And I'll restate what I said
earlier.
From a policing perspective, it's virtually impossible to
tell who's peaceful and who's not, and the pattern has been --
we have a pattern of behavior now. The pattern has been most of the groups that have been -- almost all of the groups that I have
seen and heard of, I get on phone calls with other chiefs of
police from major cities every
week, have been on -- and this
call, it's happened several
times since this civil unrest started. The pattern has been peaceful,
people who are agitators, provocateurs, whatever we want
to call that group, they intermingle with the peaceful protesters, and you cannot distinguish between the two. Like I said, and I want to re-emphasize this point, it's almost impossible to tell who's peaceful and who's not until the
person who's not commits an act.
And what we're trying to do is
not create the or allow, be per missive and allow that environment to exist right now when we know that that's the pattern that we're seeing.
People are using these events to do bad things. We know this. This is no secret. It's a defined pattern.
I think it's in all our best interests right now. I can speak from a policing perspective, to do what we can to prevent that from happening.
>> you know, I'm sure other supervisors have been at protests and participated in protests over the years, and
maybe you all have in some way as well.
And there are tools that law
enforcement can use if behavior
escalates or even if an assembly is declared to be unlawful at a particular time.
So if somebody is demonstrating or convening in a way, even in
the evening, in a way that you
believe to be a threat to public
safety, can you declare that assembly unlawful and require
them to disperse or make arrests even without a curfew? Certainly we have seen situations where there have been
bad behavior, illegal behavior, without a curfew where law
enforcement is intervening.
Why do you require a curfew in
order to ensure public safety in those situations?
>> well, supervisor, in this instance the reason that I asked the mayor and I recommended a
curfew is because of what we are seeing.
By and large we are seeing the
activity in these massive
peaceful protests after nightfall. In addition to that, and I don't
know if you all can see this,
this is three pages of looting incidents.
Every one of your districts is represented in these 147 cases,
every one of your districts. These aren't protest-related incidents. While we're having these protests downtown, when I look
at the times of these looting
incidents, almost every one of
them is after darkness, 10:00, 11:00, midnight, 1:00 in the morning, 2:00 in the morning. So it's not just the protests that are going on.
This looting is widespread. It's massive, which makes it
even harder to police, because
we can't be everywhere at all times. Right now in the country what is
going on is people are taking advantage of this situation to do harm to people.
And it's not just the protests that we are concerned about. These numbers, these pages that
I'm holding up, these three pages with these 147 crimes that all your districts are represented here, these are
businesses that have been hit. No protests. I'm not talking about protests. I'm talking about people that are riding around at night looking for places to loot. >> all right, and -- >> and we have that to deal with as well. >> I appreciate that and I think
we all absolutely want you to
prevent that, and I appreciate that this is what you believe is
a tool that helps you do that. We, of course, have to balance
that with the rights of the citizens and residents, the protections for them and their
civil liberties, as do you. For there to be a handful of
people in front of city hall who
are clearly there to have their voices heard and seen to be,
from everything we can tell, protesting for the purposes of making a point about a really
important issue of justice in our country, it's hard for me to see the connection between what they're doing and the need to
deploy hundreds of officers to
arrest them and what you
described there with the violent or destructive behavior. I'm just going to -- I know there are a lot of other people.
I just have two more questions.
Do you have the data on the breakdown of the people who were arrested and what for, how many of them were arrested for other types of illegal behavior and
how many of them arrested for violating the curfew and any
demographic data of those individuals? >> I do have some data, and I'll give you the curfew data, what we have. Our analysts are in the process
of collecting all this data.
What I have in front of me is
data for 73 believe of the 87
arrests, and the breakdown in
terms of the 73, 5% asian, and
of all those asians, let's see,
5% male, 26% african american,
22% hispanic, 37% white, 8% unknown. So that's of the -- like I said, this information, we're getting
all kinds of requests for information, so that's of the 87 curfew violations.
I can tell you that with the
looting we had 66 cases of
looting that resulted in 46
bookings, 13 citations, 15 -- let's say, about half of them are residents of san francisco
is what I can gather here.
And in addition to the 87
confuse arrests that I told you about, there were 68 citations. I don't have the breakdown of
the demographics of the citations yet. But go back to your question, I think what -- and correct me if I'm wrong.
If you're looking for an ethnicity breakdown for the
curfews, 5% asians, 26% black,
22% hispanic, 37% white and 8%
unknown ethnicities are the ones that we have counted up to this point. >> all right, yeah, and it
sounds like we don't have all the information. A part of what I'm also
wondering is how many of the citations and things were for just violating the curfew or for
other associated or different activitieses activitieses activity. I want to ask this last question about the outside law enforcement agencies that are coming to support.
How many of those officers are here, where are they from, and
maybe the mayor's office knows this as well, but how are they being paid for. And connected to that, are we expecting more?
Are they all here?
And are we expecting them to abide by our general orders? One of the concerns that I have is that these officers May have
completely different ways that
they interact with the public
and their training, and I think there are a lot of questions about how we can trust that they
are going to be engaging in ways
that we would expect officers here to.
>> yes, sir, and those are really good questions and
questions that I'm glad you asked, because with mutual aid -- let me back up.
Mutual aid only happens in extreme emergency situations, and it's very rare, very, very rare.
Everybody that I talked to in this department, people that have been here 25, almost 30 years, nobody can remember us ever getting mutual aid.
So it's very rare for us to get it in the first place. These are extreme situations when we get mutual aid. Let me start there.
When you get mutual aid, the problem is just like friday
night we sent officers to oakland. Oakland had some real challenges friday night, including the
death of one of the federal security officers.
Our officers have to abide by our general orders. Same thing when the officers come here.
They have to abide by their general orders, use of force policy, however they are trained.
What we do, being mindful of that, we try to put the officers in a position where they can be the most helpful. In this case -- and this came
from all over the state, to answer that question.
As far south as santa barbara county. They are from all over. But we put them in locations where they can help.
They secure businesses that have been destroyed and looted.
Posted up on perimeters, those
type of things while our san francisco police department police the active criminal activity.
So we were responsible for the protests that turned violent
while the mutual aid officers, by and large, were posted for
security to secure areas so we didn't have to worry about those areas being looted while we're dealing with another incident,
and that was part of the problem on saturday night. So to recap, they abide by their own general orders, but let me just go back to where I started because I think it's an important point.
We only ask for mutual aid when we absolutely need them. Extreme emergency situations. So we have to be thoughtful
about where we place people on assignments. We have communication things that we have to work out because they are on different radios and
different frequencies. It is a massive undertaking.
Who's paying for it, if the
mayor's office wishes to answer that, we just get the police department.
We receive, we give them a briefing about the basic things
and we talk about use-of-force policies. We talk about how we're going to communicate in our briefing.
The deputy chief did an outstanding job preparing all
the necessary logistical need to
receive these officers in very short notice. We're talking saturday night when the mayor said we're going to do this. Sunday, midday, we were receiving these resources.
So we had to do all this in the span of a few hours.
So we were very thoughtful about it. So far we have placed them in positions that have been really helpful to the city.
I will stop where I started.
This is an extreme emergency,
and these issues for us in the extreme emergency is to stop the
fires, stop the bleeding, stop
the looting, restore order.
That's what the order of the day is.
>> do we know how many are here?
And ensuring that they are abiding by our general orders
and, you know, I mean, there are
some obvious things that have been issues around -- that
people are protesting on, around
certain uses of chokeholds, the
way they are doing de-escalation, particularly around use of chemical agents. These are things that are part
of our general orders, and even more, you know, under our curfew, they are enforcing these potentially on people who are doing nothing more than standing on the sidewalk at the wrong time. >> yes, sir, and I understand your concern.
So here's how that works.
None of these officers are
dispatched on their own.
None of these deputies and officers from different departments are riding around the city of san francisco. It's a very controlled deployment.
When we post them on let's say
in your district, union square,
they are posted in teams, but they have a san francisco police department officer and in most cases a supervisor who is posted with them. All the tactical direction that's happening in the field is coming from the san francisco police department. Yes, they do have different general orders, but we are
not -- we haven't lost any -- we
are not doing any of that stuff, so that is a legitimate concern
and I want to put your mind at ease that we control the resources.
They don't just get to run out and police the city.
We control those resources, and they are supervised by san francisco police department command staff. We have commanders who are running the incident.
We have deputy chiefs who are overseeing.
We have assistant chiefs who are overseeing and ultimately the
responsibility falls on me as
the chief of police. We want to police this the right way. I understand your concerns, and you're absolutely right. We don't want to add to the problem. So far we've done a very good job.
We've been able in the midst of all the violence aimed toward us and I'm not looking for anybody's empathy, this is our
job, what I'm here to tell you
is we've had many situations in
the last three days with deadly
force where an officer has had bricks thrown at him and molotov cocktails and all those other
things, and we have not had an incident in response to that, except for to try to do our jobs.
>> I'm going to let my colleague jump in.
I just want to say I raise this
not at all to doubt your intentions, but there are a lot of people now who are out here who are interacting with our
residents who just got to san francisco who May have different ways of operating, and I know you're doing your best with them, and we appreciate the
mutual aid aspect of it, but at the same time, the potential for
things to go wrong, the potential for misconduct there
feels to me to be undeniable and just really want to raise that as we're thinking about laws
that are already, you know, with a curfew vague and broad. You are putting on top of that people who are new to our city
and maybe have different ways of
operating. I'll yield.
Thank you. >> thank you, President, and first off thank you, chief, and sheriff for making the time to be here and answer all our questions. Also just want to recognize chief scott, really appreciate
your assigning of a sergeant to
provide hourly updates to board of supervisor members, and one
of those updates I appreciated
getting those updates and wanted to thank you for that.
I had some -- I did have a few questions.
Some I want to follow up but not
repeat on what my colleagues have asked. My sense looking forward or at
the present moment, not looking
backwards for a minute, it seems that much of the justification,
both in the state of emergency
and the curfew, is around, as you've described it, what you're seeing in the neighboring jurisdictions and across the
country and trying to be preventative around those and
prevent that from occurring.
My colleague supervisor haney just touched on another aspect
of what I'm seeing and what my constituents are seeing around the country, not just looting
and protests and many of the activities
activities protesters, but it's
an incredible escalation of police values toward protesters, violence toward media, egged on
obviously by our commander-in-chief.
And I wanted to ask, you know, in looking at the current practices, especially now we're
days into it, got a lot of
people working long hours, as supervisor haney just said,
people coming in from other jurisdictions, what proactive efforts are you undertaking --
we talked about proactive efforts to prevent looting, crimes, violence among people on the streets. What proactive efforts are you
taking to make sure that in san francisco we don't see what we
are seeing across the nation in
terms of law enforcement
violence toward our residents? >> thank you, supervisor preston, and definitely a
pleasure to be able to provide
the sergeant to update you. First of all to your question, with the police department it really starts with me.
As leaders I think we all have a responsibility.
I know the sheriff, I won't
speak for him, but I know he shares this philosophy.
We have to be the voice of calm. There is all kinds of rhetoric going on outside.
People are anxious on all sides
of this angle. It's that leadership piece that
starts with me, and I expect that from our command staff and the sergeants and everybody
that's out there during this time.
Now proactively in terms of the message I have given to the command staff and I expect them to give it to their chain of command, the captains and so on,
we want to break this down and
not over-complicate it and make it very basic.
Our number one priority is
protection of life, first and foremost and always, protection
of life, including our own. There is no officer safety versus resident safety. We all are important, so that's the number one priority. And you have to provide or I
have to provide, and I think I
have tried to provide, a degree of leadership that sets that tone.
Secondly, it's protection of property.
Businesses are being destroyed, and we are already in a pandemic where businesses are suffering greatly.
That adds to the anxiety. Thirdly is to maintain order,
and if order is breached by
civil unrest, the force is to restore order as quickly as possible. Those are our four basic priorities. Interwoven in that, and this is
where the leadership piece
comes, backed up by policies in enforcement, is the leaders have
to be, number one, stand
together with the message that we are the voice of reason and the voice of calm through all this. And that goes a long way.
And like I said, I'm not going to be long-winded on this.
I started my career in the midst of a riot with two years as a police officer. And I remember the leadership and I remember what resonated with me and what didn't.
And it goes a long ways, step up
and be a leader and provide the
calm and the voice of reason and the voice of authority to empower me to do my job as a police officer. That's where it starts. Now in terms of these other
agencies that are bringing people here in terms of our officers, we are working long
hours, and we have to at some point -- we have to at some point, people have to be rested.
To your point, I think it was your question or supervisor haney made the point. So we have brought everybody in.
Nobody gets a day off for who knows how long, as long as we
have to work in that configure configuration configuration.
But in doing so, we have tools
to tend to people's psychological needs. We have behavioural science unit
here to look after people in these stressful times. It's scary.
I can tell you right now, it's scary out there, but scary is not a bad thing. We're professionals. When we have the right leadership, when we have the right mindset.
The mindset for this police department is to treat people with dignity and respect, period. Are we perfect? No. Is that our goal? Absolutely, and if we breach that, that's when we need to be held accountable, and that's where we will be held accountable. So that's very basic, but those
things matter, particularly in
times like this.
>> can you give us a report on the use of force particularly since the state of emergency was
declared and the curfew has been
imposed specifically in terms of un-holstering of weapons, any
use of -- I hope not of tear gas
or any other, can you give us
the report on use of force so far?
>> yeah, I can give you general
information, and that's being compiled. There's been no discharge of firearms, to answer your question.
There's been what we call last
lethal munitions, the soft rounds. They are not rubber bullets, but
there has been use of those in
some of these volatile situations. There has been controlled body weapon types of use. There has been a few baton use
of forces, but no firearms, no tear gas, any of that stuff. I'm in the process of getting all that compiled right now.
I mean, this is a very, very dynamic thing, and to put this
in context, we're in the midst of a covid response, and we created a whole covid response that we still have to do, and
now we have to shift resources to address running this incident with the civil unrest and then
accounting for it with all the administrative data that accounts it.
I've assigned two analysts to do all the statistical analysis and have all this data.
All I can give you right now is
generalities on use of force.
We call them the soft baton type
of rounds in the volatile crowd situations. There have been some baton strikes. There has been some use of body
weapons, taking people to the ground, that type of thing. >> thank you.
I just want a quick comment and then another question.
I just want to make sure, and I know how seriously you take that from our conversations, but
just, you know, speaking for my constituents, there are certainly some whose biggest
fear is looting, whose biggest
fear May be randomly being assaulted on the street. There are others for whom it is just as big a fear how they are
going to be treated by the police department. And I just want to make sure that both when we are crafting policy and looking at the data,
right, and seeing our daily
report along with this very broad authority that's being given, that we are centering
that and giving it equal weight and making sure that folks are
exercising restraint, as I'm sure you're counseling and as you say setting by example.
But I just do have to observe
that in all conversations, it's [Indiscernible] Whether it's this hearing or press conferences, most of the messaging is designed to
reassure those who are afraid of random acts of violence, and there's just a lot of people, as
we know, for whom the equal or
even stronger fear is what folks
are protesting about, and that's the conduct of police. Additionally, I just want to ask additionally switching gears a little and get some clarity on
some of these state of emergency
specifically, our declaration of emergency.
Other than the curfew, what --
how has that given you that you have used or what actions have been taken pursuant to that
authority?
Or is it strictly the curfew that was then declared? I'm trying to understand if you already have the authority to do
all the other things that you were doing. >> no other authority was granted by that state of emergency except for the curfew. That was the only additional
tool that we got in terms of our
ability to enact violations
or -- that we didn't have at our disposal before. Those the difference. >> so things like the mutual aid and other things, are those
things that you could seek and obtain regardless of whether a state of emergency had been declared? >> they are. They are.
But you know, I will say this,
we have to take it all under context. When you're at a situation where
you feel the need to enact a curfew and at the same time you
feel the need to ask for mutual
aid, I don't -- they all kind of have to be considered together
because as I was trying to say
and I hope I was understood here
that it's not as simple as taking these things independently. they all kind of work together
to make us more effective and efficient and not having the
civil unrest in our city that we
have seen and that we see in
other parts of the country right now.
So I would ask that you consider
these things as a part of a package to help us police the
city and not as much as you can
do this, not separate the issues totally. >> understood.
I just -- my concern is with the
breadth of both the order and
the curfew, right, that there are -- you know, the document reads to me what we're being asked to approve as pretty sweeping powers.
And if the purpose was to facilitate a curfew, I would much rather have seen a document that just said that.
The same with the curfew, as my colleague supervisor haney
pointed out, it's a sweeping confuse, probably the broadest
one of any city we've looked at. It could have been very narrowly tailored. I think when we as a board of
supervisors act, when we're
infringing on basic core first amendment activity, we have to do that in the most narrowly tailored way as possible.
When I look at the balance here
of, you know, looking at other
cities, for example, like santa clara earlier today lifted their
state of emergency, my understanding.
And deemed that, you know, the looting and other activity that
they predict will go on can be managed through regular police
authority, and many of the tools that already exist. i guess my question to you is
not looking back but looking at
today, why additional tools
given the level of -- low levels
of unrest right now, why are
tools other than the existing authority needed right now? And to the extent a tool is
needed, like a curfew, why isn't
it drawn more narrowly than what we have before us?
>> well, if I understand your
question, I agree with what you're asking.
To look at the low level of
violence or civil unrest right
now and then base our decisions on that. Is that --
>> partly, but I think what I'm
saying is having the orders here evolve with the situation.
So in other words, even if you still believed in some preventative curfew of some kind or something was necessary, that could be much more narrowly drawn, right?
Not just in terms of hours.
You could limit the size of
gatherings and use dispersal orders. You could close certain areas of
the city.
There's a range of powers that
are existing powers that don't
require any emergency order, and
then you add to those a form of curfew, it sounds like you needed an order. I'm trying to understand why we are not doing like santa clara,
for example, and moving away from the curfew state of
emergency and more to using the regular police authority to
address the situation right now. >> I understand your question.
I have not seen santa clara's state of emergency.
what I will say is this: I think
it goes back to what the supervisor asked me, what we
have to deal with is the best information we have right now. We know what has happened over the past week. We know what the patterns are.
We know how quickly these things
can spin up at a moment's notice, and my suggestion,
recommendation as, you know,
your police chief is if you are
going to take the risk and react after an incident happens,
you're going to be very much behind the curve.
And these situations, and I am
so happy that we have not lost lives, but these situations are very, very dangerous. It just depends on how much risk
we want to take. There's no perfect foolproof answer. On one hand we have severe restrictions on people's civil liberties.
On the other hand you take the
risk of not being prepared when
you need to be prepared.
What I would say to you, but what I'm asking for is just
allow us to have the tools and
let's be sensible on our part, the police department, about how
we implement the confuse curfew. I'm not asking for it forever. What I'm asking for now because
we're still in the thick of things right now, we very much are in the thick of things. Just because it's not happening right here right now doesn't mean it won't happen in an hour or three minutes or tonight. I know we can't live our lives like that. Normally we don't, but right now we -- I would recommend it would
be prudent for us to really be prepared for the worst, like
we're seeing in other cities,
and like we almost saw here on saturday night.
We have to take this one day at a time.
>> sheriff, did you want to say something? >> I just learned about the raising hand thing earlier today. Sorry.
I did want to add to a little
something that the chief mentioned and to reassure regarding the question about the staff and our ability to speak to them.
It's not just leading by example. We obviously provide guidance through different things, not
just general orders but being out there. Our office, we have been issuing videos and video messaging to
our staff so they get a direct
connect in terms of our expectations and reassurances about this. Hopefully it was conveyed to all of you as a board, and I speak
for the chief and his staff as well as mine when I say a lot of our staff are going through the same things emotionally not just
with covid but with the things that have happened nationally.
We're all human too. We were fortunate because with covid and the pandemic emergency we have had some tools provided
to us that we didn't have. We have the access to an
application on our phones and devices to access mental health services, and that was a partnership with the city who
worked on this instant ability to get the help we were concerned we had.
That was very welcomed and
supported by the staff and thankful of our staff on behalf of what the city has provided us as first responders. Now the covid and something we can access as we deal with this current crisis.
One thing to keep in mind too is
the curfew wasn't meant to allow
for us to be able to manage the
protests and demonstrations.
The curfew is to put us in a position to manage the city as a whole and to manage the criminal
activity going on when people go and create vandalism, destruction of property or looting.
And so our focus in the demonstration -- I'm now speaking to something that supervisor haney mentioned earlier, if I May for a second, and that is yesterday's protests
at city hall, there was a group
that -- they were allowed to exercise their first amendment rights, and afterwards allowed to disburse perse
disperse, and nobody was arrested for any protest-related activity. The first night that happened,
the arrests occurred outside of the protests when the people were moving around.
And then the second night, last night, only resulted -- I don't believe it resulted in anything more than one arrest. The other individuals that were
there were not arrested for
being there under protest condition. We do balance the curfew option
with the fact that we have these
other tools that you mentioned,
supervisor preston, about being able to [Indiscernible] Assemblies as well.
>> so what I would like to do,
supervisor preston, is to get to
the other colleagues.
>> sorry, yeah, I don't have other questions. Very briefly just a comment that I understand from law
enforcement perspective it is far easier to maintain things when you have very, very broad authority.
I just want to urge certainly the mayor and for my colleagues that we -- you know, I think the more we can be assessing the situation daily based on where
we are and making any of these
orders as narrowly tailored as they possibly can be, that certainly is what I'm looking for. Thank you for answering all the
questions and thank you for the
time, President.
>> supervisor watkin? >> thank you very much.
I don't be repetitive.
I want to make two statements. One, during this climate and the
incidents that have taken place across the country and more recently in our communities here
in the city and the bay area, it
is very concerning any time community has to be in connection with law enforcement right now.
And I think the more opportunity that we create for law enforcement to engage with community the more possible it is for negative interactions.
And so all of our responses should be to do everything we can to make sure that those interactions don't have to exist.
And then the second thing, I know supervisor haney touched on
this, and I do appreciate
everything that you are doing,
sheriff and chief scott, but I
am very concerned when we say that we have other law
enforcement bodies coming in to san francisco and working on
their protocols and working
under their use-of-force policies, et cetera. That is very concerning to me in any situation, that they would
be able to come over here and
operate in accordance to their
procedures versus what we do
here and how we train in san francisco.
First question is: have the
curfews been effective in
stopping the looting?
And secondly, is the curfews the
only solution that you see that we can address some of the incidents that have been happening that have been
negative the last couple of
days? >> thank you.
>> go ahead, chief.
>> thank you, President Yi. Supervisor, thank you for your comments.
For your first question is I believe so.
Just looking at saturday night and sunday night, like I pointed out earlier, there were two differences. We had additional resources and
we had the use of curfew. [Indiscernible] Really effective
in stopping the looting.
Without a curfew, we are just pulled in so many directions
because there is no way to
really get people off of the streets when they were committing these acts.
We had people coming into the city. I guess it went -- I don't know. I don't know how it got out, but
we had people coming into the
downtown area, and it was a free-for-all. And so the curfew prevents that from happening because if they
come in, we can deal with that,
number one because they are violating the curfew. Unless they are one of the exempted categories.
And I just want to go back to a
thing I've been talking about all night long. This is for an extreme emergency situation.
I'm not advocating and I don't think the sheriff wants this to go on for an indefinite amount of time.
I understand people's frustrations particularly because of what people have just endured and are still enduring. But it does allow us the ability
to get in front of this and not
be reactive, and sunday night by
10:30, 11:00, the city was quiet. The city was quiet because there was a curfew. The city was quiet because those people who were trying to loot,
and we saw them, and we saw what
they were trying to do, they weren't allowed to because we
were able to use the tool of the
curfew to engage with them, to arrest them for the violation of
curfew, and we did not have the looting on sunday night.
I'm not saying there were no burglaries anywhere in the city, but the parts of the city where
we were diemployed and expected problems, when people showed up to cause problems, we didn't have those issues.
>> and that's the only solution,
from your perspective, that can actually help us prevent some of these incidents, is having a curfew?
>> well, no, because, look, the
reality is, supervisor, even
when the curfew is lifted we
could have looting at any time in any place.
I mean, there's no way to guarantee that when the curfew
is lifted the looting will stop. There's no guarantee it will
stop even with a curfew. We have to figure out a tactic to deal with this long term.
Because what I'm seeing right
now around the country and in
this bay area is that people are making this their thing. They smash the window, they go
in and they have at it, and this is -- what the curfew does for us right now as a city is it
gives us a better opportunity to restore order, to get things back to a sense of normalcy so we can get on with reopening back our city.
Without the curfew, I think that's going to be even more prolonged. I think we're not going to get order restored and I think it's going to prolong everything else
that we're in the midst of doing.
>> I think the major problem is because right now because the
curfew is indefinite, there's no
definitive timeline, and I think as to supervisor preston's point, we need something in
place where we are setting a day looking at the possibility of
certain emergencies on a day-to-day basis almost versus just having such a broad order
in place, which I think is very concerning. >> supervisor, President, can I
just offer one recommendation
for the board, and if I May ask -- what I'm about to recommend? 30 seconds?
>> go ahead. >> supervisor peskin a little while ago made a comment of this
order will expire in seven days
if the board chooses not to ask. My ask is that the board act,
and that's what I'm asking, but
if it expires in seven days, what I would recommend, and as
the chief of the san francisco police department, is to let it
go to seven days, that's an automatic expiration. The board in my understanding, and you correct me if I'm wrong,
the board at any time can assemble an emergency meeting if
they want to end the curfew immediately, an emergency meeting can be extended within that seven days if things turn out that that's the appropriate thing to do. But right now we are still in
the thick of things, and with some of the statements that have
been made in the past couple days by some people around the
country in leadership positions, it has made matters, in my opinion, more aggravated.
So I just want to caution that
although we seem to be okay
right now, we are very much still in the thick of things.
So that's all.
That was my recommendation. I would defer to the sheriff's opinion on that if you would allow him. >> sheriff, do you have any comments on that?
>> I think there's also a
reference in the order of -- I understand that we have this
decisionmaking ability, but the seven days would be a hard end
to something, and it covers the time period that we have some concerns about. And as the chief mentioned, if there is additional problems on
the other end of things, if there are additional problems, we are faced with continuous
conduct of looting and vandalism and people taking advantage,
then we would be able to enact a further emergency order.
But I think it's a good way to
look at it, and I would support
it if the board supported that approach as well. Only because as mentioned earlier, and I don't want to keep saying the same thing over and over, but this has been a useful tool and it has
demonstrated a change in some of the behaviors. It would send the wrong message
if we do not have one from the outset because there are people
that have the intention of taking advantage of this, not the people who actually have a voice that need to be heard but
the people that want to be able
to burglarize and loot and rob all these places in order to do
that under the auspices of not having a curfew would only hurt us and would create that emergency again.
So the seven-day thing is a good option and I would support that
if everyone is in agreement. Thank you.
>> supervisor, are you done?
>> yes, I am, thank you so much. >> okay, thank you. supervisor, you're up. Thank you for your patience. >> thank you. Chief, I was probably -- I think
I might be the only other person
on this call that was in L.A. In 1992 during the L.A. Riots, and
I was in high school.
I was under curfew, and I will
say that it did feel very
different than what's happening right now.
I quickly looked up what was going on at the time over the
six days of rioting there were 63 deaths.
There were 2,303 injuries.
There were 12,000 arrests. There were 3600 fires that
completely destroyed 1100 buildings.
And I just want to echo some of
my colleagues' comments about proportionality.
Taking away basically someone's first amendment rights, which is what this is, when you have a
curfew just existing outside of
your home makes you commit a crime for which you can be
searched, seized, arrested and taken to jail.
And to take away that right indefinitely because I understand what you're proposing right now. I'm not comfortable with seven days. I'll talk about that. But what we have before us to
vote on today, the thing we have
to say yes or no to is an indefinite curfew that after 8
P.M., between 8 and 5 P.M. Takes away people's fourth amendment rights, to be free from search and seizures without probable
cause, basically, as long as
you're outside.
And that is an extraordinary taking away of our constitution rights.
And I know that you know that. But allowing that to go on without a clear reasoning on a
daily basis, and I understand your argument for why this is important, that you want to be able to be proactive, that you want to get ahead of things so
that we don't turn into a city
like los angeles in 1992. I truly understand that and am
hearing you on that.
But for me, to issue -- to say
this is okay, to take away people's rights in this way, to be outside and to be free from
searches and seizures without probable cause, I have to understand what's happening every day. I need the justification every single day.
I need to know why you feel like we need to continue the curfew. I need to know what happened the night before. I need to know how many people were arrested.
I need to know what uses of
force were made by the police on people in the streets.
I mean, there is information
that we have to be constantly
reviewing as a city, and as
leaders we institute this extraordinary power, and the
irony is not lost upon me that
the reason that these protests
are happening is because communities of color having
incidents of violence and
over-policing and killing.
And so it's a very unique
situation in that way to then
create that possibility of those interactions and those conflicts to be even greater. I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself really well here.
But what I want to concur, and I
think seven days is way too long. I want you to have the tools that you need to keep us safe.
I want you to have the tools
that you need to keep san franciscans safe.
I think you've done a tremendous
job over this extremely hard
time, but for me, seven days is
just too long.
We need more information in
order to allow this incredible
removal of our liberties.
>> thank you. Are you done?
>> yes, I am, thank you. >> President, would you like me
to respond or move on? >> I think -- I'm sorry.
>> I mean, if you have a response. It wasn't a question. >> yeah, I didn't hear a question. >> the President Is right. It was more of a comment than a question.
I guess -- okay, I have a question. What would be the problem with
having to renew the curfew daily
after reporting your reasoning
behind feeling like it needs to
continue?
>> so there's not a problem
with -- I think we always [Indiscernible] Daily. I think what's missing in this conversation, though, is if the belief is that just because we had a good day today tomorrow is
going to be a good day, that's where the -- we don't know what's going to come tomorrow. >> right.
>> but what we do know is the overall temperament of this city, the region, this country right now.
People are anxious, afraid, and the overall situation is just
generally very volatile, which makes these type of events more likely than not to occur. >> right, right. >> and the harm, and I'm not --
you know, seven days, three days, four days, this is very
difficult for all of us. And supervisor, I understand exactly what you're saying because, look, my family, when I'm not at work and when I'm not
at work I'm under the same
curfew, so I understand it. >> right.
>> right now we are in a
situation, just last night, just
across the bridge on the other
side of the bay, massive looting.
And so the difference in 1992
and now, and I was out there,
and one of the problems with the city at the time then is we
didn't get in front of it.
54 people, whatever that number was, died.
What I'm telling you all is this. We haven't had anybody die, and I think that kind of takes a little bit of the heat off. The possibility of somebody getting killed based on what I
saw saturday night in this city is very real. And I understand liberties and
the restrictions of this and all
that, but the danger of this is enormous.
So I just want to go back to saying day by day that we can get you all the statistics that you need to be informed about what decision you're going to make, and I think we owe you that. >> but can I repeat the question one more time?
I just -- I personally would
feel so much more comfortable
voting in favor of a curfew on
a -- that expired each day, or even, you know, every two days.
But seven days, that's a really long time.
And so I'm just asking you practically, does that cause you problems?
If you have to come to, you know -- issue another curfew and say these are the reasons, this
is why I still feel the danger is really high, this is what's
happened in the last two days,
this is how I'm assuring that this power isn't being abused.
If you have to do that, you know, every time that you
reissue the curfew, that makes me feel more comfortable that as
a city we are balancing these incredibly important concerns. Both that people are safe in their civil liberties and in their right to be free from unwarranted search and seizures,
and that you can do your job to
protect the safety of the people of the city and county of san francisco. And so it's the balance that I feel is off. It's not that I don't understand what you're asking for and what
you need to do your job.
I'll just ask it one more time. Is there any problem with -- why do we need seven days?
Can't we do that every day or
every two days? >> we could.
Like I said earlier, my understanding is the board could convene an emergency meeting at any time. >> exactly.
>> and based on that assessment, make a decision. To remind everybody, we're in the third day of the seven days, so we have four days left of the seven days.
We do know we have an event tomorrow that we believe will be a significant event. We don't know how that's going
to turn out, but we know that it exists.
Those type of day-by-day exceptions that you're talking about, that's the type of
information that we use to determine basically what the
risk factors are that we know about. >> but just to be clear, what we're voting on today, like what is before us does not expire in seven days.
It is an indefinite curfew.
>> can I -- what we're voting -- I think supervisor peskin sort
of articulated it when he first was asking me about what are the
things that we can do.
So I'm explaining it to you, and
I could be explaining it wrong.
We can either accept it and it lasts forever.
We could say no to it -- >> can I clarify?
Because I heard the same explanation from -- I just want
to clarify what I'm saying. I just wanted to clarify what I was saying because I think we might be misunderstanding each other. I heard the same instructions from the city attorney that we
all did, and my understanding is the emergency order expires in
seven days but the curfew is indefinite. Is that right?
can I just confirm that again? Deputy city attorney?
>> deputy city attorney ann pearson. The curfew will only remain in
order if the emergency is in place.
So if the emergency were to
terminate after seven days, the curfew would terminate as well. >> I see. So the curfew does terminate in
four days. >> the authority -- the curfew order is contingent on the declaration of an emergency. So they are connected. >> I think that's what I was trying to explain, supervisor. >> sorry, President. I was confused. >> no, no, no. >> thank you. >> this is actually really confusing.
[Please stand by]
>> Supervisor Ronen: so -- sorry. Just a couple more pieces of clarification.
We've been talking about four days, but if it expires
saturday night, that means the curfew is not in place on
saturday night. Is that right? >> is that for me?
>> we just had to do the calendar math. >> no, that would be four.
So tonight included would be five.
>> Supervisor Ronen: okay. Wednesday, thursday, friday,
saturday night, so that's five
nights.
>> President Yee: okay.
>> Supervisor Ronen: and I'm sorry. This is my last question, and it's not for the chief, it's
for angela or the county attorney.
If we wanted to, as the board, rescind the emergency order,
would we have to have notice to
the public?
What are the practical concerns
to doing that?
>> Clerk: if the President Wanted to hold a special meeting --
>> Supervisor Ronen: to rescind the curfew order.
>> Clerk: to rescind the curfew order, there's a limited
opportunity to do so only because the newspaper noticing
would require -- we would require 24 hours to run the notice in the paper. We would have -- thursday is
the last -- I believe it's
thursday at 10, alisa?
>> yes, Madam Clerk, thursday at 10:00.
>> Clerk: so that would be our notice to put notice in the newspaper which would run on friday.
>> Supervisor Ronen: so it's
not true that we could just
call a meeting and rescind the order.
So basically if we table this item or we vote yes on this
item today, if we do either of
those two things, then we're
basically agreeing to at least
have the curfew for three days.
We'd have to call an emergency meeting, which would completely be in your discretion to do,
President Yee, so -- and then, that would happen on friday at the earliest.
And then, if you chose not to
do that, then the -- then,
there would be five more days of the curfew. okay.
I understand what I'm voting on. Thank you.
>> President Yee: okay.
Supervisor mandelman.
>> Supervisor Mandelman: thank
you, President Yee. I feel like I am having a more extreme version of a thought
that I've been having over the
last several months as our
peculiarly structured municipal government attempts to deal
with a pandemic and now a
threat to public order.
As a gay man, a jew, and a
lawyer, I am very committed to
civil liberties, and as a gay
man, a jew, and a lawyer, I want a community where we can be safe. I think these are extraordinary times. I think we make a mistake if we
think of this body, this board
of supervisors, as a check on
the executive along the over leaning lines of donald trump.
I think we have what is usually
a beautiful system, a split authority between the mayor and board of supervisors that becomes the model for the rest
of the country. I think in this crisis, we have
seen over and over again a
second guessing of almost every move that the executive has made in dealing with the pandemic and now dealing with
this latest addition to the crisis. I believe that what the mayor
did this weekend, what the
police chief urged her to do,
was reasonable, given the circumstances.
I am supportive of signing on
giving her until next tuesday. given everything that I'm
hearing from the mayor's people and the chief that they would
be extending this indefinitely.
I am comfortable giving them that. I think the mayor and the chief should be proud that san francisco has not blown up worse than it has. I think I am incredibly grateful for the leadership that they have shown. I think, again, that we can look at this again next tuesday. I would be very surprised if
this order is still in place. That is my inclination. That is what I would like to do. I also understand that there May not be the votes on this board of supervisors to do
that, and if the best we can do
is extend this to saturday and
let the mayor evaluate if she wants to further this on saturday, she can.
I would like to give people the opportunity to weigh-in about
their thoughts about not taking
action on this and about
dealing with the world as it is
on saturday.
>> President Yee: Miss Kitner? >> thank you, President Lee and supervisors.
What I would say is that -- a few things.
First, the mayor takes very seriously the balance between civil liberties and public safety, and she is evaluating on a daily basis. If there is more information that we can be getting to you,
the supervisors to assure you that she -- that we are making
that decision, you know, with the appropriate weight, please
let me know what that is.
To speak to a few of the issues
that your colleagues it mentioned, on the declaration of emergency and then the curfew, on the declaration of emergency, I don't want to speak for the city attorney, and I want not involved in the drafting process, but I believe that it was drafting mort to get the order out as quickly as
possible and early in ---- drafted in the morning to get
the order out as quickly as
possible and early to avoid delay. [Inaudible] >> it May be that it no
longer -- or 5:00 A.M. Or those
exemptions May no longer be
appropriate parameters for that curfew, and I think that the
mayor is very open to looking
at what those exemptions are, what those hours are, what that
process looks like if we are to
keep the curfew going forward,
and as she has been doing with
the covid-19 crisis, the
executive authority gives her
the authority to do that during this crisis, but that is something that is out there, and we would love to be partners with that.
I think to that end and what you were referencing, supervisor, what that would
look like, perhaps, would be supporting the emergency declaration which I understand
gives the mayor broad authority to make further supplemental orders but did not give her those authorities without those supplemental orders, so you would continue to have a check on that.
and then, you could continue the -- continue the item of the
curfew itself until next
tuesday so that the emergency declaration would be ongoing
but the -- you would be able to reevaluate at any point you had a board of supervisors when
that curfew needs to come up.
>> Supervisor Mandelman: but if
my colleagues are interested in
requiring some changes at curfew or next tuesday, your
request would be that we approve the emergency, that we take no -- oh, if we approve the emergency, the second ordinance just kind of survives. >> yeah, it would require a
measure of trust that we are willing to work with to what that looks like. I absolutely defer to the chief and sheriff about this. Some of concerns that I've heard about letting it expire on saturday is having a date certain like that, particularly
in the middle of the weekend might be problematic, but I
understand that there is a lot of concern about having something like this seem indefinite. This is not what we want.
We don't want this to seem indefinite. We want this to end as soon as possible, and I don't know if
that answers all of your
questions, but that's all I can think of monday .
>> Supervisor Mandelman: thank you, Miss Kitler.
I would move to grant the
mayor's folks question to extend the state of emergency
and take this up next week, but
i am not sure there's support for this on the board, and if it's the will of the board to
only go until saturday, then I
guess I will go along.
>> President Yee: supervisor fewer?
>> Supervisor Fewer: yes, thank you, President Yee. First of all, I just want to say that I believe, actually, what the chief is saying and what an emergency it is.
You know, I am a native san franciscan.
I have seen many protests here.
I think that we are in a very different time. We have a President That is fighting people, we have people
that are out of their minds
with guns, and I think it could be a very dangerous situation.
I feel like this curfew is a
tool, and I think it's a tool to help us manage a crowd.
When we say don't you have the
power to say disburse?
Yes, we do.
But do we say, stop throwing
molotov cocktails, stop
looting, that is a volatile situation.
This is an extreme emergency, and an extreme emergency calls
for things that we maybe have
never used before or used regularly. I think, through this whole
thing and this whole time,
we've been seeing extraordinary circumstances, and I want to be
able to protest safely, too, and I want the people of san
francisco to be able to protest safely, too.
But when they were throwing
mo -- when they are throwing 34
olotov cocktails -- molotov cocktails, I don't feel safe, and I know that other people don't feel safe.
I have attended protests ten times, 100 times larger than
what we're seeing on our streets, and they were completely under control. This is something different here in san francisco. I want to save lives.
I think the looting the stores,
yeah, what is super dangerous, but yeah, what is even more dangerous is the possible loss of life. And I don't think we understand just the danger we put everyone
in when we don't have some
tools in our tool chest.
I think that it's -- you know,
it's one thing that we put san
francisco's residents lives in danger, but it's another thing that we put san francisco's law
enforcement officers' lives in danger, too, when we don't give
them the tools to control the situation.
My husband was in many, many
large big riots, with a lot of gear. I remember him coming home one night, and he was in a horrible situation. I don't think we understand how
quickly it gets under control
and how quickly we can be overwhelmed. It can happen very fast. When you have a police force
that's maybe a couple of hundred right there, that
situation can get overwhelmed very, very quickly. My husband remembers getting
information that you cannot move, and people are throwing bricks at you.
The guy next to you, which is a
retired marine, a big, huge guy gets hit in the head with a
brick, and he goes down. When they were waiting for
someone to take him away, a new guy comes in and takes his plays. And they are throwing bricks
and all sorts of things at you, and setting things on fire, and
this is in the heart and soul
of san francisco.
I understand about civil liberties. It really would.
It would be different if I hear
that the police department is
jocking up people for getting
some fresh air or talking to
people in their yard or on their door stoop. I am not hearing that. I am not hearing that police are saying to people, oh,
you're on the way home from the grocery store. I have to arrest you.
I'm not hearing that. What I am hearing is that we
are in a potentially very danger situation, and I err on the side of caution.
This is a tool in the tool
chest of our law enforcement.
I think you all know how I feel
with reforms and how I feel about use of force and
everything else, and I get it.
But at some time, we have to
leave this type of situation, where it's potentially
dangerous, where potentially san franciscans get killed. We have to say to the police chief, who is -- we have chosen
to protect our city. His judgment, essaying to us, I need these tools.
I need these tools to keep san
franciscans safe, and I need these tools to keep first responders safe.
So I can understand about the civil liberties, but what I'm
not hearing is the fears of the dangers that can happen and the loss of life, and the shared loss of life.
And I think that we have a
President That will incite things and will cause things. It is unknown. We've had shootings in
churches, in movie theaters, as
at concerts, anywhere that people congregate. This is scary.
So I am with supervisor mandelman. I would wait till next tuesday
and revisit this then, but I know there might not be appetite on this board, and I am willing to compromise with what President Yee is suggesting.
But I just want to say, you
know, I think it is our job as
ledge laytors of san francisco
and elected -- legislators of san francisco and elected officials, it is our job to keep them safe.
Thank you, President Yee.
>> President Yee: supervisor
peskin -- oh, before you do,
supervisor peskin --
>> Supervisor Peskin: I don't
need to speak, Mr. President. You're good.
>> President Yee: I wanted to give supervisor safai a chance
to speak.
He's on there, and he hasn't had a chance.
>> Supervisor Peskin: I don't
need to ask any questions.
>> Supervisor Safai: thank you,
supervisor peskin, for deferring.
We all have had different opinions, and we all have had different interactions the last couple of nights. I appreciate what my colleagues
have said, but I want to
underscore some of the things that supervisor fewer said, and
I really want to thank her for sharing her own personal
experiences as the mother and a
wife of a police officer on the
frontlines, dealing with these situations.
And also, I want to appreciate some of the things that supervisors ronen and peskin and mandelman have said.
I am 100% supportive of civil liberties. I think many of us -- supervisor walton, the mayor, and supervisor mandelman and
other elected officials -- I think supervisor haney was
there, as well.
We all were participating in a peaceful protest, exercising our constitutional rights, and there were a lot of san franciscans there -- and the
chief was there, and sheriff
and other folks from law
enforcement were there.
But some of the reports that
we've had of people throwing
molotov cocktails, rocks, and
bricks, I think we need to defer to the chief. He has experience dating back to the riots in los angeles and learning from those experiences
back in the early 90s and helping them to inform.
You know, I have spoken to
almost every business in my district, those that were
vandalized and looted and destroyed.
These are people that were organized criminals -- that are organized criminals that are breaking into people's businesses and their dreams and their livelihoods and their hard work.
I want to recognize that, too.
I know the resolution calls out some of the stuff that happened downtown.
You know, we had Mr. Campos' jewelry on mission street, K.T. Jewelry on mission street, some
of our cannabis dispensaries,
which people heavily rely on. There's a lot of businesses that have been targeted in
this, and I think allowing for
this order so the good and law abiding citizens of san francisco can be safe. I appreciate putting this out there, and I appreciate what everyone's saying today.
I look forward to having a good resolution. I appreciate what President Yee has said in terms of maybe
having a good compromise. Supervisor mar, I know you
haven't had the chance to speak.
>> Supervisor Mar: thank you,
President Yee. I do share the concerns that
have been raised, you know, by
my colleagues around the -- you know, some of the impacts
around this executive order, not just civil liberties, but
on our residents and businesses, and this extra
strict lockdown that's been imposed, and at this time when we're still navigating, you
snow, the restrictions from covid-19. And actually today, you know,
we -- actually, this afternoon,
we had a pretty amazing
powerful beautiful protest with
over 1,000 people from the
outer sunset, coming to the
great highway. We've never had anything like
that in the outer sunset along
the great highway. And thank you for the police
chief and the officers from the taraval station for making sure that it was peaceful.
We need to err on the safety of
our decisions, and that's what's allowed us to achieve
the success that we did in covid-19, erring on the side of public health. So I am inclined to --
actually, I'd -- I'm -- I'm --
I'm supportive of, you know, supervisor peskin's original suggestion of just, you know, allowing the orders to expire
on saturday and then see where we're at then. Thank you.
>> President Yee: so -- thank
you, supervisor mar.
There's a few supervisors on the roster, but they've spoken, and I'd like to make a suggestion. I think people have valid points on each side of this, and there's a bunch of things we could do one way or another. What I'm going to suggest at
this point is to make a motion to continue this item to a special meeting on thursday so
we don't have to post anything, we'll just say we're going to
have it, and reevaluate where we are at the time and can make some decisions then, so that's
two days from now.
I think this is some rule
that's under rule 4.4. So deputy city attorney
pearson, am I able to do this?
>> I see Madam Clerk standing
to weigh-in, so I will defer to
her on application of rule 4.4.
>> President Yee: okay. Madam Clerk?
>> Clerk: thank you, Mr. President. This 48 hours from now,
thursday, we want to check with supervisor mar, chair of the G.A.O. Committee. We don't want to overlap with his meeting, but yes, if a
motion is made by the board,
the board could continue this
motion to that recessed meeting. In that item, I would ask that
you order the clerk to process all of the other items on the
agenda so that this is the only
item on the agenda, establishment of the proclamation of local emergency and the curfew motion.
>> President Yee: okay.
I mean, I will adjust my motion
to state that, and is there a second?
>> Supervisor Safai: second, safai.
>> President Yee: okay. So there's a motion for these items to be continued to a
special meeting on thursday.
>> President Yee, can I ask a procedural question that relates?
>> President Yee: yes, go
ahead -- I mean, this is --
>> Supervisor Preston: yes,
both on your motion and whether
now or on thursday, the vote's
on both the concurrence or rejection of the emergency declaration and curfew.
I'm trying to get clarity on
the vote threshold on both, and
I just want to make sure we're all operating under the same assumptions here. my understanding here is that
to concur or reject either of
those two orders -- and this is for either deputy city attorney pearson or for Madam Clerk,
that we would need -- for an
imperative item, we would need a unanimous vote to concur or reject.
>> Clerk: that is correct. That is correct.
>> Supervisor Preston: okay. But for procedural matters such as the continuance motion, we would need a majority.
>> Clerk: majority, that's correct.
>> Supervisor Preston: so I just -- colleagues, I mean, I am -- this is one of the most
important things we are dealing with. I am happy to have other hearings, but I just want to
also be clear on what we're
trying to accomplish. It sounds to me like we May have some very different
perspectives on this board as
to the propriety of these very
different orders, and we would
need to have a unanimous vote, and if we don't have the
power -- it's essentially the mayor only needs one supervisor
to agree with these orders, and
then, we can not reject them.
That's my understanding of the situation we're in.
If those are the rules, I'm trying to understand what's the purpose of continuance is in
that situation, given the leap of faith --
>> President Yee: unless you
know why I made the motion to continue.
At least for me, I've heard the arguments that people have
presented, and I think this is
valid on both sides of this,
and I personally, not knowing
what's going to happen in the
next two days, I personally
would vote on the side of supporting it.
But if, in the next two days,
we find that the situation has calmed itself radically, I would say there's no need for the emergency.
So that's how I'm looking at it. Supervisor haney, were you going to say something? I wasn't sure.
>> Supervisor Haney: no, that was the point.
>> President Yee: oh, okay.
>> Supervisor Haney: I think that we need a unanimous vote
ahead of it, to accept it or reject it.
Otherwise, it stays in place until saturday.
>> President Yee: right. So I made a motion. It's seconded, and we can vote on this.
>> Clerk: Mr. President, we would take public comment first.
>> Supervisor Walton: President
Yee, I had questions.
I hate to ask twice ahead of your motion. I had a clarifying question. I don't want to vote no on your motion without a little bit of clarity. I mean, I can move forward, and
we can -- that's fine --
>> President Yee: no, no, go
ahead, supervisor walton.
>> Supervisor Walton: my
question is I support no to concurring with the curfew.
If I voted no just by myself, then that would, in consequence, basically be
saying that we have a now end
date of saturday, correct?
>> President Yee: Madam Clerk?
>> Clerk: I would say yes.
It would take one member to not approve these items, and then, the item would not be approved.
In order to approve, the vote threshold is unanimous.
>> Supervisor Walton: and then,
the result is if we decided to meet thursday, if one person
voted either way, it would
still mean saturday is the end date?
>> Clerk: if, on thursday, you
voted no, it would mean that
the motions do not pass and
saturday is the end date.
>> Supervisor Walton: thank
you.
>> President Yee: supervisor preston?
>> Supervisor Preston: yes, to follow up to the city attorney.
What is the soonest date we could continue this to where it would not have an imperative item?
>> so for this to not be an imperative item, it would have
to be a noticed item, and I
believe Madam Clerk spoke to the earliest date that she
could notice this, so I would defer to Madam Clerk on the noticing requirements on how
quickly she could get a notice
meeting scheduled.
>> Supervisor Preston: Madam
Clerk, I -- [Inaudible]
>> Clerk: in order to get it
into the newspaper, and to have the newspaper run the article for 24 hours, we would need to
get that notice to the newspaper by thursday.
And then, it would depend on
what time the meeting would start, I start. I believe it would be a saturday meeting. That's the quickest we could
notice a separate meeting other than recessing today's meeting
and continuing these two items to 48 hours.
You could also continue it for 24 hours. [Inaudible]
>> Clerk: that's correct. Right.
So essentially -- essentially
today, the President Could introduce the item, and normally, we see something like
that go to committee or, if
it's noncontroversial or a commendatory piece, it's able
to go to the committee section
of the next tuesday board agenda.
But that would be, again, the
very first appearance of this
item on that agenda, so again,
it's unanimous.
>> President Yee: are you okay, supervisor preston?
>> Supervisor Preston: yes, thank you.
>> President Yee: okay. Supervisor ronen?
>> Supervisor Ronen: yes.
So the only thing that we could
have done today is reject it unanimous. Otherwise, no matter what we do
today, it's going to expire on saturday.
>> President Yee: yes.
>> Supervisor Ronen: but you're saying that maybe by thursday, there'll be a unanimous
opinion, and so that's why it would be worth continuing it to thursday?
>> President Yee: yes. I was trying to collect
everybody's comments.
>> Supervisor Ronen: right.
>> President Yee: there's
support to have this emergency order last longer than saturday, and we did nothing,
it would last until saturday.
Some of the colleagues felt maybe that's too long, and if,
in that case, if I had to vote
today, I wouldn't say stop it earlier than that. So if we were to meet
thursday -- again, because people were asking, well, can
we have a daily evaluation or
at least every two days, and
I'm thinking too myself that, it's been calm somewhat, and maybe two more days, we're finding that the rest of the
bay area is also calming down,
I could easily switch over and
say yes. That was my thought. Otherwise, we're not going to get there any faster.
>> Supervisor Ronen: got it. I understand. Thank you.
>> President Yee: you're welcome. No more comments on the motion,
so if you want to vote on the motion, roll call, please.
>> Clerk: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
We need public comment on this.
>> President Yee: okay. Public comment, please.
>> Clerk: operations, can we
queue up the public commenters, please.
>> Operator: yes.
We do have a number of commenters.
>> Clerk: so callers, if you
are in the queue, and you press star-nine --
>> President Yee: so before we do that, Madam Clerk, I'm going
to declare that the public
comment right now is for what?
>> Clerk: public comment on
both the concurring and the proclamation for local emergency and the establishment of the curfew to meet the local
emergency and the fact that you are continuing -- recessing the
meeting and continuing those
two items to 48 hours from now. So we should say a time certain we'll throw out.
I know that supervisor mar has
his 10:00 G.A.O. Meeting. Hopefully, it will end by 2:00.
Supervisor mar, if you're not
fine with 2:00, let us know.
>> Supervisor Mar: that should be fine.
>> President Yee: okay. Thank you for the clarification. Go ahead with the public comments.
>> Clerk: okay, operations.
>> Operator: hello, first commenter.
>> so my name is francisco decosta, and you should be ashamed of yourselves, and I'll tell you why.
I often say really this city needs an incident management commander to know about the
issues that they're talking
about, especially in this imperative agenda. Some of you supervisors who don't have your heart in the right place, if you all want to
challenge some authority or
some regulation by being headstrong, then you're not supposed to be a supervisor.
Step down and go somewhere else. And to the police chief, you need to get an incident commander to give the board of supervisors an orientation.
And I tell you, the President
Has already sent a couple of
ships our way because this is
not about some molotov cocktails, no, no, no.
This is getting to be nasty. And so the President Of the
united states is aware of that, the attorney general is aware of that. But from stupid board of supervisors in san francisco, I'm saying, this is bad for the city. Thank you very much.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments. Welcome, caller.
>> yes, thank you. Are you giving three minutes as it says in the agenda?
>> Clerk: you're getting two
minutes, Mr. Warfield, and I'm starting your timer now. >> all right.
I just wanted to clarify that.
>> Clerk: all right. >> I was hoping to speak on general public comment, which I
think you're going to still have, is that right.
>> Clerk: that's correct, and I'm starting your time now. >> thanks very much, and in this case, I appreciate all of
the hard work and efforts of
all involved in having a very
extensive conversation about
what's going on, and in this
instance, trust to our
supervisors and the administration.
Thank you.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments. Next caller, please.
You'll have up to two minutes. >> -- district 6.
i'd like to say that I sat here
for two hours to apparently
hear that sftv is going to
continue to run the city of san francisco and the board of supervisors isn't apparently allowed to exercise any
authority over it.
Sftv, sfpd needs more tools, when we already don't know the tools that they have.
I would like to know how many
times they've hit people with pepper spray.
People in the city, having
nowhere to go, trying to move
around, exercise their rights.
Sfpd is continuing to exercise
their rights to put people in danger. Frankly, I'm just frustrated that apparently there's no way
to have any oversight over what
curfew orders sfpd and the mayor put in place from our elected officials.
It doesn't really seem like
there's much point in attending
city government meetings and supposedly having some kind of input on what the government does when the cops and the mayor do whatever they want regardless. Thank you.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments.
Next speaker, please. >> hello?
>> Clerk: hello, we can hear you. >> great. I'll start now. Hello.
My name is celina, and I'm a student at ucsf.
I'm also a member of the
science policies of ucsf.
We are a group of students,
faculty, and staff.
I'm calling in as a member of
staff and as an individual, asking you to exercise your authority today. Make no mistake, the curfew
will disproportionately affect people of color. Police will use their discretion, they will use use
of force, and it will effect
black and brown people. People have the right to protest and to exist but what I want to talk to you today is about how it's affected black and brown frontline health care workers and scientists. We have already had people
reach out and voice that
they're scared because of the increased police presence and curfew. They're afraid of being stopped by the police.
It does not matter that they're
headed home in accordance with the curfew.
Every interaction and rightly
with this fills them with fear. Several white people recognize that our interactions with the police is much different.
And while mutual aid and helping your colleagues is
nice, it's different when the
city fails.
In the last month, both sheriff and police were wearing thin blue line vests. You cannot give they are more
discretion and more tools. They are not capable of yielding them.
I ask that you recognize the
systemic racism built into S.F. Policism.
We cannot criminalize as exercising free speech as the
police are trying to do their jobs.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments. Hello caller, next speaker.
>> my name is gabriel markoff.
I'm an attorney and a seven-year resident of district 8 in san francisco.
I saw a video of 50 to 100
police surrounding a group of a few dozen protesters in front of city hall.
Second, I saw my wealthy white
neighbor who walked his dog at
around 8:30 P.M., 30 minutes
after curfew was in effect and
came home 30 minutes later, totally un totally totally unarrested, and that's
what this is all about: targeting people of color and
young people who are trying to
standup what it means to be an
american and do it in the face
of the brutal police force that
never gets held accountable. All they do is create more
crime by criminalizing lawful activity. What happens when police are focused on chasing and arresting them?
Getting lots of overtime that budgets can't afford, that
allows criminal looters to commit looting in other areas
of town where the police aren't looking. All because it might help stop
some looting or it might help keep people safe. This is the kind of thinking
that war monger george w. Bush
started in 2001 and ended with donald trump declaring martial
law in washington, D.C.
If the police can't stop a few
minor incidents of looting with
their budget, we need to reduce
their budget and find other ways to fight crime. You can stand with the people and reject this unconstitutional curfew.
Do the right thing. Thank you.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments, sir.
Next speaker, please.
>> hello.
Can you hear me? My name is brook ashton. I'm a student at san francisco
state university, and I want to
thank police chief scott for his dedication.
It must be very difficult to do
a job the nature of which is
the problem at heart.
I want to speak today just to one comment he made, that people are afraid. We are afraid.
We are afraid of you. I've been at the protests the last two days, and I can tell you what was scary. Peaceful protests, police
driving up in vans at excessive
speeds, and unloading from
their cars, the van, to protect the bank. It is aggressive, and that is what is aggravating, a police presence.
There's plenty of scholarships
by people who study riots,
crowd behavior, and in
particular, I will quote
something from a B.B.C. Article
I read.
A professor, clifford scott, from peel university in U.K.
Who has studies riots for many
years, and this is a commonly understood scholarship about
riots. They are a product of
indactions largely to do with
the nature of how police treat crowds.
I would just repeat that the
stress of police in riot gear was aggravating.
That's what made it scary.
I was there. Thank you.
>> Clerk: thank you 230r for your comments. Next speaker, please. Welcome, caller. >> hi.
My name is eric coller.
I've been a resident of san francisco since December 2018,
and I just want to say that it shouldn't take a week for me
living in the city to know the violence of the sfpd and what actually keeps us safe. It's not a curfew.
There was a black man shot at
4:00 A.M. Underneath my window.
I woke up to cops screaming, stop or I'll shoot.
He wasn't armed, he wasn't doing anything.
This is why people are out. This is why people are protesting. You don't need a curfew to stop it. A curfew isn't going to stop it.
It's going to make people even
more angry and depressed.
It is going to continue, the riots.
A curfew only gives the police opportunity to owe ppress with impugnity.
You have a chance to set the example for the rest of the country, defunding the police
and funding housing, education,
and welfare in this city.
It is disgusting how much we spend in this city on policing
and all it does it make the
oppressed even less safe than
they were. Please defund, abolish the police. Listen to what people out there are saying. Thank you.
>> Clerk: thank you, sir, for your comments.
Next speaker, please. >> hello, can you hear me?
>> Clerk: yes, we can hear you. Welcome. >> thank you. Hello.
My name is joshua. I live and work as a designer in district 6. My supervisor is matt haney.
He's doing an excellent job of
engaging with his community and
listening to our voices, unlike
some others. I would like to add my voice to this discussion.
Curfews are the tool of the oppressor.
I agree with the others that
the protests and protesters do not scare me. The police with their loaded and lethal weapons, that is what is terrifying.
This is a civil rights issue,
which you say you care deeply
for, but your actions say otherwise. It is clear to the people of san francisco that our elected
officials that support a curfew care more about property damage than civil rights. This is one of the deepest
rooted problems with our unbalanced equality in san francisco as a city.
It has been a top down issue for decades now.
Living to all of you, there's a clear distinction listening to
you that say that the violence comes from police and those of you that are saying that people
are keeping people safe.
They are not keeping people safe. We must reduce policing, not
expand it, especially not in indefinitely. Also, bringing outside officers
in is not the answer. It adds insult to injury that costs taxpayer dollars, that we're paying for this.
We would better use this money
to house homeless, build safe
injection sites, provide P.P.E. A police officer cannot know who is working or who is homeless by driving by them
with the mindset that they must
detain anyone who was violating a curfew. Innocent people are targeted by this bias.
This is proven by the numbers released as of yesterday.
>> Clerk: thank you, sir, for your comment.
Next caller, and welcome caller.
You have up to two minutes. >> hello, supervisors.
I am a resident of district 1.
This curfew is nothing short of fascist collaboration with donald trump.
Seeing things such as
vandalism, looting, all it does it give police carte blanche to
arrest anyone and everyone they want.
By chief scott's own admission,
all of the vandalism were entirely cleaned up by the next day.
Every protest I've ever
attended that's turned violent
is because the police have
instigated the violence,
tacking without provocation. If you want to --
[Inaudible] >> fire the police who murdered
alex nieto. Disarm the police who use chemical weapons that are banned in war time but
permitted to be used on our own citizens. Thank you.
>> Clerk: thank you for your
comments. Next speaker, please. Welcome, caller.
You have up to two minutes. >> hello. I support chief scott for several reasons. Unless you're going to pay for
all the looting that's occurring in san francisco, you are coming up with no recommendations on how to keep the city safe.
I hear all the protesters that are stating that the police are the problem, but truly, law abiding citizens aren't the problem.
The people who have intent of
looting and committing criminal acts, that is the problem, which actually jeopardizes the safety of all. The supervisors, I ask, unless
you're going to pay for the looting and the damages, you think strong and hard about how
you're going to make the city safer.
Irregardless of supervisor ronen reading a book about what
happened in 1992 and preaching about the fourth amendment,
it's safety that we're talking about.
supervisor preston, your bias
of equality of sensorship and attendance, that is ludicrous.
So supervisor walton --
>> President Yee: excuse me. Be sure your comments are not
directed to any supervisor in particular. Thank you. >> you must think about the --
the people that you're trying
to serve.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments.
Are there other callers, operations?
>> Operator: yes, there's still a number of callers. Go ahead.
>> Clerk: welcome, caller.
You have up to two minutes. >> hi. Can you all hear me?
>> Clerk: yes, we can. Welcome.
>> excellent. Howdy. My name is norm.
I live in district 3, and I want to thank supervisors matt
haney, hillary ronen, and dean preston for speaking up. You all are asking the right questions and breaking down the conflicting statements from the
chief, which I think are uncomfortable and unsettled. I think we need to defund the
police and find ways to commit
to investing in the black community. A competent police chief can
speak to the numbers of people
killed and what was happening
and giving answers to the reports that they are reading.
He says that the violence
starts with the protesters abuse
violence, and that's not true. you can't have officers out
there in full riot gear, and
then tell us that you're scared of people.
Upwards of 40% people killed in
S.F. In the last 45 years were black.
We need you to be able to standup for your black community right now and not
just put them out in the rain
and pretend they don't exist because your property is on fire.
Matt haney asked it.
Why are you saying we can't have peaceful protests, but
then, you're restricting their rights.
Do I have any time left?
>> Clerk: you have 30 seconds. Thank you, caller. >> okay. Thank you. Have a good day.
>> Clerk: you too, sir. Next caller, please.
Hello and welcome, caller. >> hi. This is martin munoz. I live in district 5, and first, I want to say I am totally against this curfew.
I believe it strongly infridge
nges
on our first amendment right to free speech. I was out on the streets, and unfortunately, the sheriff's
department or sfpd, I'm not exactly sure which van this was, ran into a group of us
peaceful protesters on what's supposed to be car free market street. How can we have the police department ramming into protesters and causing extreme
violence in a peaceful protest
that did not cause any damage
to the city? I believe that this curfew is
going to be targeting black and brown people who are working working class jobs and causing the criminalization of black
and brown bodies for no good reason.
Let us protest, let us live in freedom and peace, and let us
be out there, protecting black lives.
Once again, black lives matter,
and to quote supervisor sandra
lee fewer, fuck the P.L.A.
>> Clerk: okay. Let's try to keep our language
more formal. Thank you for your comment, sir. Are there other speakers? >> yes.
My name is patrick kirby, and I
live with my wife and two young children in the sunset. I'm an attorney, and I can tell
you that the justifications I've heard from law enforcement
today for keeping the curfew in place are frankly nothing short
of absurd and embarrassing.
Boiled down, we're hearing essentially from law enforcement that both peaceful
action and nonpeaceful action each somehow justify keeping the curfew in place. It's silly. I can tell you I've personally attended the protests each day since saturday, and the
protesters have been
overwhelmingly peaceful.
The only aggression or escalation I've seen was on the
part of sfpd on sunday in in inexplicably driving S.U.V.S
into protesters and then driving another one into the protest.
to keep the curfew in place is
outrageous to keep people from
speaking out against issues. To mayor breed and the supervisors, we're watching
your actions very closely, and
you face a binary choice right now. Continue to support the
protesters and their rights, or force more violent interactions between the citizens and the police.
I can tell you the longer this
curfew happens, the more people
will continue to ignore it, and the more likely that action will be taken against the city
to end this embarrassing and controversial curfew.
I strongly urge you to end this
curfew today. Thank you for your time and consideration.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comment. Next caller, please.
>> I am calling because I would
like the supervisors to rescind
the curfew immediately.
This is disproportionately affect people of color. Police chief bill scott said the people arrested were almost
half black people and latinx people.
The city is only 5% black and
15% latinx. As many people said, if you
attended the protests, you know
that police were the ones in
full riot gear and armed with guns. People are scared of the police. They're not scared of looting. They're protesting because of the police.
We can not give the police more unjust power.
we need to defund the police
and give the funding to medical professionals and other
community leaders.
We are scared of them, of those murderers.
I live in district 8, and in regards to the comments from my
own supervisor, I am ashamed.
If he was paying attention, he would know, and he does know,
the sfpd crashed the pride
parade last year. He should be working to end
this curfew. Thank you.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments. Welcome, caller. You have up two to minutes. >> thank you.
My name is kitaj. I'm a district seven homeowner
and also a mother of two kids
who are both in the schools here. I'm calling because I want to know why this meeting wasn't about why people are protesting
and feeling desperate right
now, which is the violent targeting of black people and
the murder of black people. I also want to make sure that all of you go much, much further.
Now is the time to defund the police by removing all but the most emergency functions from them. You all as the board of
supervisors uniquely have the
power to adjust that police budget and move the abundance of funding to other agencies, agencies that can welcome people to the city and help
them, support them, not punish.
We've tried incremental reforms
for decades, and it's not worked, which is why our country is erupting right now.
So please, please, wake up.
Stop messing around at the
margins and actually do the real work here. Please do not allow anymore people to be killed here. Thank you.
>> Clerk: thank you for your
comments. Next speaker, please. Welcome, caller.
You have up to two minutes. >> hi.
I live in district 5.
We need to end the curfew and
ask you to enact needed reforms that would end police violence.
I know some reforms will take
longer than others, but getting started on reducing police violence through policy is the single most effective thing we
can do to end unrest.
People are lashing out at repression.
>> thank you. Good evening, supervisors. This is calvin quick.
I serve as the district 5 youth commissioner, but I'm here
speaking in my personal capacity.
I am here, asking to end the curfew.
I also want to echo concerns about black and brown essential employees going to and from work.
It is deeply problematic that we are giving our police department more discretion more
freedom to exercise subjective judgment in making arrests when we know that our police department has problems with
racial bias, when we know that there are deep institutional problems and with law
enforcement, with racism and
prejudice and racial profiling, that within that context, we
are saying as a city that the
only box the police need to
tick to detain them, that box
that you need to check for violating the curfew is
unbiased checking by police.
It boggles the mind that the
systemic police brutality, we are affording the police more lee way.
I urge you to rescind the curfew now. Thank you.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments, sir.
Next speaker, please. Welcome, caller.
You have up to two minutes.
>> my name is carla, and I'm a district 6 resident. I want to join in the support
for ending the curfew not on thursday, not on saturday, but today.
The reason why the protests are
occurring is because of police
brutality, and to give police
even more power to brutalize
people, to randomly grab people
that are attempting to get
home, first responders, or people that are making a delivery? Like, how will they know?
I personally attended a
protest, and it was super, super peaceful until, of course, police showed up. Another concern I have yet to
be heard is in the middle of a
pandemic, they are using tear gas, and what happens to the people they arrest?
They load them into buses and put them into jail cells.
It's a pandemic, so that means that more people are going to get infected, more people are
going to get covid-19, and you guys are giving them pretty
much the permission to do so.
There was a supervisor earlier
that was coding the meeting that said that.
>> my name is adam.
I'm a district 6 resident, and
I wanted to speak out against the curfew. A curfew that is targeted
against protesters is clearly a
prior restraint against speech and is unconstitutional on every level.
Everything that we've heard in support of the curfew is that
it's there to stop the protests. All the supports evidence that we have support the fact that the
protests have been peaceful.
I saw police harassing other folks.
I did witness the police S.U.V. On market that people are talking about. I did see the police lineup to threaten the protesters. As a journalist, I pulled out
my camera immediately, and I was ready to record because I thought the police were going to start going after people.
Again, I have a level of safety
because I have white privilege. I know I don't have the level of fear that other people do, but I saw them tense up. I saw the action. The police are also out there, many of them without masks, you
know, we've got covid. We're supposed to be social distancing. They're closing in.
They don't have masks, and, you know, what is it?
are we protecting ourselves or
are we not?
Why are we allowing ourselves to be scared because police say we should be scared? I watch the police conferences with the chief and mayor breed.
They say oh, we need to do this for "safety," but no one has said what systemic changes are
going to be made to make the police safer.
If you really want safety, look to cities that have had the police marching with the
protesters, supporting the protesters.
You do not need 50, 60 police
for a protest of less than 50 outside city hall.
>> Clerk: thank you.
Next speaker, please. Welcome, caller. >> hi. Can you hear me?
>> Clerk: yes, we can. Welcome. >> I live in supervisor mandelman's district.
My family came here from the former soviet union because we believe that this is a democratic country, and I still believe that, and specifically, I believe in the city of san francisco. On saturday, I was in a crowd
of protesters when the police were pointing their weapons at us, even though we were peaceful, and we kept raising our arms and shouting for them not to shoot.
On sunday, I watched videos of police arrested protesters that
were not armed and that were
not a danger because they were
"violating curfew," and I watched it happen again on monday. that's not free speech.
That's not a danger to anybody,
and that's not how free societies are supposed to behave. I still believe in the first
amendment and the right of people together.
I am sorry if the police department cannot handle
criticism from people, but they're not -- [Inaudible] >> I please ask you to vote against this curfew.
If there's no purpose, looting
is already illegal, but so far,
all this has been done is to
stifle the sense of free speech. Thank you so much for that.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments.
Next speaker, please. Welcome, caller. You have up to two minutes. >> hello there.
My name is aaron, and I live in district 7.
Born and raised here in san francisco, and I also work for san francisco for the last 16 years.
I urge all of you to please end
the curfew immediately.
One thing to mention is oakland
mayor libby schaaf why she did
not enact the curfew is it's a
symbolic depression of people
of color.
Curfews do all sorts of harm to
our city.
One is that businesses that are typically open after 8:00 P.M. Have to close.
Because of that, employees are getting wage cuts because you
can't do the work or work the night shift anymore, and because muni and other agencies
in the areas are cutting service, so that means if
people are working close to
closing time, meaning 8:00, they are can't catch public
transit, so they're now
spending more money to get home. Any of us here in san
francisco, we should not be oppressing people of their first amendment right. It's a beautiful night tonight, and people should just view tonight's sunset. Once again, I urge all of you to please end the curfew now. Not tomorrow, now. That's the end of my comments,
and thank you very much.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments. Is there another speaker in the queue, please? >> hi. My name is elliott wild. I want to point out that
supervisor ronen made this
viewpoint that the curfew must be justified every night that it's enacted.
It hasn't been justified any night. It's abundantly clear that this
is a mechanism to extend on the
authorittarian power of the
officials in san francisco.
How can we give more power to an organization that can't perform basic overnight?
Defund the police before we
have another alex nieto,
jessica williams, and mario woods.
I am 19 years old, and the cowardice of some of my local
politicians to end this curfew today has completely turned me off to the idea that there will
be change in this city.
The idea that S.F. Park and
recs has closed public
bathrooms, leaving my friends
to not be able to poop with dignity? End the curfew now.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments. Welcome, caller. >> hi. I'm natasha.
I live in district 2? I'm calling to request the board move to enter this curfew?
We know that curfew is a tool that people use to suppress our right to protest, and we've
seen how it disproportionately harms black and brown san franciscans. I urge you to take action today and not wait until thursday or
saturday to end this curfew. I want to second what the
person before me said about supervisor ronen's point, that we have to know that this curfew is required every single
day, and we haven't seen that
in action any day.
I have been at peaceful
protests during the weekend, and if anything, we've seen police intimidation over and
over and over again? It is wild and gross and
unbelievable that the police
aren't able to report how many acts of violence that he have committed and acts of
intimidation during this time. I hope that this is on the agenda every single day for the board of supervisors, and I hope that they can really see
the light for what needs to be done. Thank you.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Welcome, caller.
>> hi, my name is ryan.
I live and work in district 9.
I am a social worker for the city of san francisco department of public health. I'm calling just to join in on the course of those asking that
we rescind this curfew immediately. You know, I've been at these
protests all weekend long, and the act of aggression that I
saw from the police were absolutely abhorrent.
You all do -- play such a role in setting the tone of a
dynamic, and when you are seeing vehicles filled with
riot gear armed police, aimed
at crowds just exercising their
right to innocently protest,
it's like they almost were let down that people were not being
more violent than they were.
Please, don't give them more power to use whatever nondiscretion power that they
have to keep us "safe." the police chief said it's hard for us to know who is going to
do wrong, who is going to do right.
You know the tools that they're using to determine that? The color of their skin.
As a D.P.H. Employee, it is
crazy that we can spend all
this money bringing in all
these police officers from kwho
kwho -- who knows where, where my department, we don't even
have the money to provide quick
personal protective equipment to san francisco. What the police of the united
states of america have done to black community for generations, it's not the
looting of the stores. We cannot think about this issue outside of the broader context of the united states
given the words that the President Said yesterday. How can we even be considering
the question of enacting this
curfew further?
We are just furthering his
agenda to create a more police state. Please vote in your souls what is right.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Welcome, caller.
You have up to two minutes. >> can you hear me?
>> Clerk: yes, we can. >> I live in district 8, right
by district 9, and I'm really
disappointed in my supervisor for district 8.
Just shocking and really proud of the analysis that supervisor
ronen made.
I feel I want the curfew to end immediately.
It's very counterproductive. It's just in your face that
we're going to take away your rights, the police are going to
take away your rights, first
amendment rights, and it's kind of like that boot stepping on
your neck, on your face, the
steel-toed boot on you.
Also, the protests are nationwide. Well, they're nationwide for a reason. It's to let the voices out
there be heard.
The police chief's logic is twisted, well, because police are being allowed to protest in
other places, they shouldn't be allowed to protest in san francisco.
I haven't seen too much of the protests because I'm very much following the stay in place
guidelines, but we know mario
woods, we know alex nieto. There's so many, it's hard to remember the names.
They have the blue ribbon
panel, 240 recommendations, and they've done like 40.
In these days, can they say how many times they've been using these weapons, and how many
times they've been hitting people? No. We cannot -- san francisco
cannot be part of the military.
Anybody who's been to protests,
them riding up there with their motorcycles, too many police
out there.
It's being request -- [Inaudible]
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments.
>> I'm matt, and a resident, and someone who thinks this is a complete farce.
First, I'd like to call out some particularly egregious
things about what the chief was saying. First, property crimes, we
don't need to violate people's
rights to recognize them. If cops are too dumb to figure
out who's committing a crime
with this authoritarian nonsense, they shouldn't be cops. Besides that, without like calling anyone out
specifically, I'm a jew, and I
believe that hypothetically, it is shameful to use that to
justify a commitment to order
that involves taking people's rights away.
Absolutely not acceptable.
Besides that, let me just say,
what we're seeing is a broad
escalation of police violence. Enforcing curfew and playing
along with these outer
narratives lets us play along
with these doofuses, and the
only solution is to defund the police.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments. I believe there is one other caller in the queue. Send him through. >> hi.
I'm zack, and I'm a district 6 resident.
It's time to end the curfew
now, as santa clara has just did. On sunday night, things were so quiet that I heard on the police scanner an officer explaining he was going to
escort a chipotle delivery driver around for the next hour. If officers have time to do that, there's clearly no citywide emergency. If we have extra resources to
send to oakland, there's
clearly no see wide emergency.
There's no reason why independent restaurants
currently teetering on the brink of bankruptcy should be forced to close for the night.
What we need is not a curfew
and hundreds of law enforcement
interactions, harassment of
peaceful protesters and people of color by officers who refuse to wear face masks.
It is a profound failure of leadership. The mayor's silence is
stunning. Her office has nothing whatsoever to say tonight in justification of the broadest use of her powers, and she
didn't even show up to yesterday's public safety press
conference. The police is not serving the
city if it's incapable of preventing crime without
imposing a citywide curfew. Suddenly, we have vast
resources for the hundreds of
officers to swarm literally one protesters in front of city
hall as they did last night.
End the curfew.
Thank you.
[Inaudible] >> -- to express their anger and demand that police accountability be taken seriously by the san francisco government. It is also endangering a lot of people and businesses who are trying to get to and from work
and to and from the protests.
It's very difficult to move in
and out of the city for regular business because of the curfew,
and it's very dangerous in allowing police to brutalize more people at a time when they
need to stop brutalizing people, so I am highly against
the curfew, and I ask the board of supervisors lift it.
>> Clerk: thank you for your comments. Operation
>> Operator: Madam Clerk, that completes the queue. Mr. President? [Please stand by]
>> there's a motion on the floor
to continue the two items or recess the two items on thursday.
and we just take a little call
and see what happens, ok?
Madam Clerk, can you call the
role? (Role
>> to continue to thursday, 2:00 P.M. Meeting.
Role call: .
>> there are six ayes and five
no's with supervisors hain-rbgs
y, preston, ronen, safay
ye and
walton in the dissents. >> we need majority.
Majority to approve the motion. To recess and continue the items
to thursday.
>> motion is 6-5 vote.
Are we going back to 3:00 P.M.?
Items 30 and 31, 20 and 21,
Mr. President. Special order is the board of supervisors and sitting as a committee of the whole, this
motion to sit was scheduled and
approved on May 12th, 2020 for
a hearing to consider objection
to a report of delinquent
transfer tax under the
regulation's code for personal
block 0269 lot number 004.
That is 364 bush street and directing the transmission of the said report to the controller and the tax collector for collection and deposit into
the general fund. This public hearing is for a
resolution to confirm report of
a delinquents tax in directing public hearing to occur on this
day. >> today we will be considering
a report for the property
transfer tax for 364 bush street, and without objection, we will proceed as follows. A brief presentation from snap
at the office of the city
assessor and recorder.
We will proceed as proposed and
douglas leg, from the recorders' office, here to present and
Mr. Lee.
>> good evening, supervisors.
As President Yee said, I'm the deputy director of operations
and the recorder's office.
We're here to ask for a lien on transfer taxes, penalties and interests, triggered by a change
of ownership by a legal entity. The property in question is
located at 364 bush street.
On March 9th, 2018, royal
phoenix llt purchased an
interest in bush street, llc.
This created an accessible change in ownership for both
property taxes and transfer
taxes and transfer tax in the
amount of $9,000 for this event
was paid on March 16th, 2008 and under the ordinance, and that was based on a reported
value of 1.$2 million for the membership interest transferred.
Under the ordinance, however,
the transfer tax is the market
value of realty and not paid to acquire a portion of the legal entity.
We noted that the reported value
was settlely below the assessed
value and we sent a request to the
the proper owner.
We received a request that did not provide support for the
value claimed as the transfer
tax basis.
There was tangible and
intangible personal property was
$8,975,000.
For $7,775,000 before than what was declare at the time of recording. This resulted in a transfer tax
liability of an additional $192,000.
On March 4, they recorded a notice of delinquent property taxes and deficiency determination on the property
and the same day we issued a
demand letter via certified to
the seller and buyer for the unpaid transfer tax liability,
plus penalties and interest 1115
of article 10c.
I would like to put this break in context.
Since our audit transfer tax
began, we've collected over
$45 million from 66 taxpayers in unpaid hits
taxes and $4.5 million in
the current fiscal year and the
city has refunded of that $45 million that we have
collected, we have refunded $3 million.
Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions the board May have. >> thank you, we will now
proceed to public comment. Is there any member of the
public who wishes to speak on
the report of for 354 bush street?
Madam Clerk, see if we have any speakers?
>> in operations, do we have any
speakers, please? >> Madam Clerk, there are to
callers wishing to speak. >> Mr. President, there are no
speakers in the cue. >> ok, then public comment is
now closed.
Madam Clerk, can you call the role?
>> this would be on item 21?
>> we will close the hearing. >> and just reconvene as the
board and have a role call on 21.
>> item 21.
>> on item 21 --
Role call: .
>> there are 11 arc
arc
ayes.
>> this resolution is adopted
unanimously and thank you. So
I think the next item is public comment. >> for individuals who would
like to dial in for public
comment, the telephone number
has been crawling across the
screen and is on the website, as
well, and it is for 156-55-0001.
And when prompted, enter the
access code which is scrolling
at 921-46-2660 and press pound twice to join the meeting.
To be added to the cue to speak
or raise your hand, dial star 9. The system will prompt you when
it is your turn and all
speakerrers are cueing up, I'll provide the best practises and
you should call from a quiet location, speak slowly and clearly. Each speaker will have two
minutes or up to two minutes to deliver your comments. If you're utilizing an interpreter, the interpreter
will separately be timed for two minutes and keep your comments within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the board and we
have from the office of civic engagement three interpreters
who are assigned to our board meetings during the local emergency and I would like each
of them to say hello to let the
community know they're here for them.
And we'll start with Mr. Fayette.
Speaking foreign language: .
>> thank you, Madam Clerk. >> Miss Lee, let the community
know you're here, please,.
Speaking foreign language: .
>> I'm done, thank you.
>> Mr. Arturo cosenza.
Speaking foreign language: >> in operations, can you please seven the first caller through
and you'll have up to two minutes. Welcome, caller. Pout
>> so my nape
name is francisco
lacosta and the commission is in
disarray. And the san francisco police commission hasn't met in many
years, many months until we made
some noise and so they have met once or twice.
And I was paying attention to
the rules' committee. There were two black candidates, one worse than the other and
they're now sitting on the san francisco police commission and now she's chosen two other
candidates, unfit to be on the police commission.
And this is all connected.
It's connected so much so that
the board of supervisors are pull our hair and they don't
know what to do and I don't want to go into the details.
But what is happening to our city?
We don't have a functional tax
force, a functional ethic's
commission and board of
supervisors that wags their
tongue and the mayor chooses two dysfunctional police candidates to be on the commission. Thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. Welcome call e. Er.
You have up to two minutes.
>> I'm speaking with items 20 and 21. there was a technical glitch is
I was in the cue for two hours and if appropriate, take a
revote on this tax issue for 3 364 bush street.
I'm with the law firm of rubin, junias and rose.
>> excuse me for a second.
Stop his time. You're kind of out of order but
I don't think my colleagues
would mind if you were to speak. One of my colleagues or some of
my colleagues object, go ahead
and continue. >> thank you very much. I want to preserve the taxpayer's rights here with
respect to the issue at hand.
I did want to point out a couple
of issues. The taxpayer property recorded
the transaction in March of 2018 and did not receive the
reassessment of the transfer tax for approximately two years.
So the penalties in interest are
over 50% of the tax. It's $113,000, approximately,
and if the taxpayer had known what the tax would be, we would
have been able to get it paid much quicker.
This is a small company, 100%
minority owned and 50% women owned.
They are giving their tenants tax breaks and support local businesses and within of the tenants is sam's restaurant, a local establishment that's been
around for many, many years. There are some issues with the
value of the property.
The assessor has not yet reassessed the property and we
have not had an opportunity to
appeal the valuation and there's
a disagreement about the revenue
and tax code, 1114b and there
are tate's law and federal regulations which we believe
require that the transfer tax be based on the consideration paid, not the value of the property.
And this was a membership interest transfer and this ordinance is relatively new and
it has not been tested in the courts. So there is a dispute. We've inninged
indicated with the
assessor we would rather work with them rather than create a test case.
I urge the board to allow us the opportunity to do that and not
impose a lean on this local minority-owned business,
especially in this economic environment that's very volatile. Thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments and for the record, Mr. President, my staff are
telling me that there was no one
else in the cue at the time.
There was no one who had raised their hand. However, I understand this is a
new system to all of us and so, as with the rest of us, it May be difficult or hard to figure out hard to use, but just for the record, I wanted to let you know there was no glitches on
our side.
>> no, no, I wasn't in indicating that. I was indicating that we heard the item. >> very good.
I think we have one other call earl in
erin the cue. Is that true? >> yes, direct.
>> ok, welcome, caller.
>> you have up to two minutes, welcome.
>> I think you have the wrong name.
Is it my turn?
>> yes, Mr. Warfield, go ahead. >> this is peter warfield and I'm speaking with two hats. The first point to make is on
behalf of equity for older students and we can be reached
at equityforolder students@protonmail.Com.
On thursday night, and, in fact
friday morning at 7:30 A.M., the board of trustees at city
college voted to extend the
lease only so long as it would be necessary through September
to remove the heavy gear and
other gear that is part of city college's presence there for
more than 45 years and so to end
fort mason as a site, as a campus of city college.
We have been very concerned
since at least November that the trustees have been practicing
age discrimination by cutting
more than 90% of the older adult student's program from 76 about
a year and a half ago classes to 52 in the fall and for the
spring, they scheduled before
covid-19 just five. That's an all of complete destruction of the older adult program.
And now they are basically ending over 45 years of presence
in fort mason in a step that is
likely to be permanent and irreversible.
And underscores the older adult,
basically, diminishment or elimination because that is where a until
number of the older adult programs existed and there was a kind of community.
All of the arguments, in terms
of facts, are highly questionable to put it poe politely all and of the classes are high
enrollment and on and on.
We acts ask that you in any budget discussion as well as legislation look to make sure -- >> thank you, Mr. Warful, for
your comments.
>> hi, this is adam chung.
I want to speak about past residents as a whole.
What will you doing about police
reform overall? What is the plan?
We haven't heard anybody addressed this directly. We've talked around it and had other items that were adjacent
and no one in san francisco government has yet stepped up
and said, we are going to tackle the problem of police reform head-on. These are the problems we see. These are the problems that
we're going to address.
We haven't even heard the first steps of the plan to dig into those issues.
So I would urge you all to put
something on the agenda for an upcoming meeting, to start a
committee if you need to do that want
that, whatever the process is, take it off and don't just let that question go unanswered during board meetings, during
press conferences because that's what you're constituents want to know. How will you solve the problem,
not how are we all going to complain about it? Thank you. >> thank you for your comments, sir.
>> any other speakers? >> that concludes the speakers in the cue.
>> thank you. >> and so
then public comment is now closed.
Madam Clerk, can you go ahead
and just call the adoption on
committee reference agenda items, 25-34?
>> yes, items 25-34 were introduced for adoption without reference to committee and a unanimous vote is required for resolutions on first reading today. Alternatively, any supervisor May require a resolution to go
to committee.
>> commissioner stephanie.
>> I would like to sever item
number 26.
>> are you muted, Mr. President? >> thank you, anybody el else want
to sever any items?
>> 27 and 28.
>> item 31. >> Mr. President, were you
interested in item number 29? >> it's ok. >> thank you. >> ok, can you go ahead and call role on the remainder of the items.
>> on items 25, 30, 32, 33 and
34, supervisor hainey --
>> wait, and 29? >> and 29, thank you, Mr. President. Yes, thank you.
>> supervisor hainey. >> aye. >> soup store
Role call: .
>> there are 11 ayes.
>> ok, so these motions are
approved and resolutions are adopted.
And so let's go to item number 26.
>> item 26 is a resolution to support california state senate
bill number 939, authorized by
senator scott weiner and coauthored by david choo and
phil ting to protect nonprofit
organizations from evictions and permit small businesses or restaurants that have
experienced a decline in revenue
during the shelter-in-place to
terminate commercial leases. >> supervisor stephanie.
>> thank you, President Yee. I would like to continue this
item to the June 23rd meeting. >> ok, motion has been made and
is there a second? >> second, peskin.
>> so seconded by peskin and
call role, please. >> on the motion to continue
item 26 to June 23 --
Role call: .
>> there are 11 ayes.
>> call items 27 and 28.
>> to meet remotely during the shelter-in-place order and to authorize the local homeless coordinating board to meet
remotely during the covid-19 shelter-in-place order.
>> ok, supervisor hainey.
>> so the mayor had 16 supplemental which was city advisory bodies and boards are
again authorized to meet so that mean these motions are to longer by the board and I want to thank
my cosponsors, supervisor ronen, preston and walton.
Given the provision and the mayor's order that for non-chartered bodies that the
meetings must, quote, reasonably
require the time of staff with emergency operations, motioning
to continue both items to next week's meeting to explore the impact of this requirement and make sure that these two bodies
can meet in a timely fashion to
address rapidly changing shelter policies despite the staff time
required to run these meetings.
Please stand by: .
>> President Yee: okay.
I believe we need to have a
motion to excuse shamann -- I mean, supervisor walton.
>> Supervisor Safai: so moved.
Supervisor safai. >> second.
>> President Yee: okay.
There is a motion and a second.
Roll call vote, please.
>> Clerk: on the motion to excuse supervisor walton --
[Roll Call]
>> Clerk: there are ten ayes.
>> President Yee: okay.
So the motion to excuse is
passed unanimously.
The item itself.
>> Clerk: on item 31 -- [Roll Call] 23rs
.
>> President Yee: okay.
Then the motion is approved. Welcome back, supervisor
walton, and congratulations.
Madam Clerk, I have to ask that
we rescind the first vote for
items 25, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34
because I want to sever 29 out of there.
>> Clerk: okay.
On the motion to rescind, Mr. President --
>> President Yee: do I need a second?
>> Clerk: yes, you do.
>> President Yee: can I have a
second on the motion?
>> Supervisor Stefani: second.
>> President Yee: made by
supervisor stefani. Can you call the vote?
>> Clerk: Mr. President, you don't need to rescind the
entire vote, you just need to
rescind the vote on the item you're hearing.
>> President Yee: okay.
I'll rescind the vote on item 29.
>> Clerk: and the second.
>> President Yee: supervisor stefani, is it okay?
>> Supervisor Stefani: yes, go ahead.
>> Clerk: on the motion to
rescind
rescind?
>> President Yee: yes, go ahead
and call the roll.
>> Clerk: on the motion to rescind -- [Roll Call]
>> Clerk: there are 11 ayes.
>> President Yee: okay. Thank you.
So motion to rescind passes.
Colleagues, I'm sorry. I should have severed this item. What I'd like to do is make a motion to continue this item
until our next meeting on June
9, for the same rationale as
what supervisor haney gave for
27 and 28, so can I have a
second to continue this item?
>> Supervisor Fewer: second.
>> President Yee: made by supervisor fewer, I believe.
>> Supervisor Fewer: yes,
that's me.
>> President Yee: okay.
So Madam Clerk, please call the
roll.
>> Clerk: on the motion to continue item 29 to June 9 -- [Roll Call]
>> Clerk: there are 11 ayes.
>> President Yee: good. So the motion to continue to
June 9 passes.
Madam Clerk, can you read the in memoriams?
>> Clerk: today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the
following beloved individuals:
on behalf of supervisor peskin,
for the late richard alioto.
On behalf of supervisor yee for
the late donnetta e lane. On behalf of supervisor ronen
on supervisor hanzanetti.
On behalf of supervisor walton,
for the late lottie titus, and
on behalf of supervisor ronen, for the late george floyd.
>> President Yee: thank you. Colleague, that brings us to
the end of the agenda tonight.
Madam Clerk, is there any further business before us today?
>> Clerk: that continues --
that concludes our business for today.
>> President Yee: thank you very much. Meeting adjourned.