tv MTA Board of Directors SFGTV April 3, 2021 4:00pm-6:01pm PDT
>> hi, we are concerned about the proposal. we do support the appeal. i do have that much to add. my neighbors have spoken already. i want to -- i'm very concerned about the decrease in property value. i talked to my realtor and other people. that's a real concern of ours. we plan to live here very long time and we are very unhappy about the idea of living with this structure which would be very visible from the entire front of our house. property value is concern to us. i appreciate you listening to our concerns. i hope you take us all into consideration. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your
comments. we have 19 listeners and two callers in the queue. if you one of the 19 you like to provide public testimony for the appeal for the at&t mobility enemy project, please press star 3 now to get in the queue to speak. >> my name is bruce johnson. i live close to the desired site. i wanted to voice my support for the appeal and ask that the board of supervisors reject the project based on grounds that's been covered in the other callers today. i'm a homeowner and a landlord at this site. which is very close.
i'm concerned for the blight the project would cause and the impact on property values and rental values in the neighborhood. we ask for your consideration of this. thanks for listening. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. let's hear from the next caller please. >> my nail is mark -- my name is mark campos. we are in full support of their appeal. clearly, this is a test case as other people who have mentioned in public comment have said for what at&t plans to do and other
neighborhoods in the city. regardless of where you represent in our city, there will be more 5g towers because that is rared of the 5g initiative by these telecommunication companies. i'm familiar with this as well. i represent some of the millennials in san francisco who have moved to the area. we both been in san francisco for the last five years. there are plenty of other spaces where at&t can find this to be installed.
>> after being continued several times by the planning commission, the commission approved the conditional use application on january 28th of this year. the appellant bringing up four main issues in their appeal. the first proposed project is no in compliance with the preference finding. the appellant is concerned about radiofrequency levels and the impact it will have. the proposed increases the height of the building affects the neighbors access to some light and alters the appearance of the building.
the application show there was a coverage gap in the at&t network and that the coverage gap would be closed after translation at this site. regarding the second issue, the planning commission found that the proposed project was properly referred to the department of public health for analysis. radio frequency efficiencies levels are regulated by the state and federal government. in response to the third and fourth issues, the planning commission found that the project has been modified to minimize impact from adjacent buildings. the proposed screening for the wireless facility was modified following comments received on november 7, 2019. the planning commission found that the rooftop installations
can be set back to ensure best coverage in compliance with regulations. the planning commission found that the project has been modified based on the planning department recommendations. the commission found that these efforts met the requirements in section 9 of the building criteria which dates back to the extent necessary and to ensure compliance with regulations, equipment shall be low lying and shall be paint the, screened or treated to minimize visibility of the equipment. if installed on the roof, the facility should be located to minimize visibility especially from the street or public places. for the reasons stated, the planning department recommend
that the board uphold the planning commission decision. that concludes my remarks. >> president walton: thank you so much mr. star. colleague, any questions? i don't see anyone on the roster. since there are no questions, we will now call up the project sponsor to speak up to ten minutes. >> okay. good afternoon supervisors. good afternoon president walton. i'm from at&t and joining me on this call is our outside counsel. we have network engineer here in case you have questions for him. for years, at&t had a significant gap in coverage in
this neighborhood. we worked really hard to find feasible site to finally bring the residents of this area up to the level of service that's enjoyed by the rest of the city. here on this map, you'll see the existing coverage and all of that white blank spot means there's no coverage there. what we're trying to achieve is get some coverage for the whole neighborhood and the outlying area. once the site is built, this would be the coverage that we will be able to achieve. in addition to the much needed coverage and capacity to the neighborhood, this site will include band 14, which is our first responder network. this is a really tough neighborhood to find location to site a wireless facility. every single building is what the planning department refers to as preference seven. that's the lowest preference.
it is under the planning code. the only one that was not preference 7 was rossi and rossi pal. we did try and the recreation parks department said no. for two years, we worked with the planning staff to design a impact as low as possible. there's been redesigns. this is what it would look like once built. there's another view of it now. we were on the commission agenda five-times in the last year. at the commission's request, we did a second round of letters to see if there's any other buildings or building owners that were interested. we did receive one response. it was not residential building. due to the characteristics of that building, we would have had to build a 25-foot high structure in order to comply
with the fcc and achieve the coverage needed. we worked really hard to design sites that are -- with all the work of the planning department, we were really proud of the design that was approved unanimously. of by the planning commission. we know that the couple next door appeal, we hope you understand that this site will serve all the residents in the broader area and provide connectivity and service to the folks who had not been available. we have met with the neighbors several times. we heard their concerns. primarily they have been health related. once we realized they were worried about the shadowing, we saw the study that mr. green prepared. we hired a shadow study consultant to do one. the studies that actually less than 2% increase in shadow would occur on their upper deck for few weeks of the year. their lower deck, rather yard are already very shadow.
the increase there will be negligible due to the sites. there are no sites like this in san francisco. we have sites like this all over san francisco. we have one on gary that was just approved. we're in the process of building now. as planning commission found, this site will enhance the total city living and working environment. we contribute to the character and stability of the neighborhood. for now, i will turn you over to our outside counsel, aaron shank. >> good afternoon. president walton, supervisors, i'm aaron shank, outside counsel for at&t. at&t has a significant service coverage gap in this city. it needs to provide the service through a macro site. it needs to prove its l.t.e.
service. at&t demonstrated the gap in the application with coverage maps and with radio frequency statement in the file. at&t was very hard to find the right solution for its network and for the city. the federal law applies here. the telecommunications act of 1996 prevents the city from preventing wireless service. per the federal courts, if the city wants to look for another site, the burden will shift to the city to show a site that is available, feasible and less intrusive. there's no other sites here. the city needs to approve this application.
it was not reallial dispute. the planning commission found the site is necessary to close the gap. it will be compatible with the building. it will be compatible with the neighborhood. the plannings commission found that it will be minimally impactful. i want to address the appeal issues as presented in the writing. location preference 7, this is location preference 7. unfortunately, there are no lower preference or more preferred sites in the area that have viable. at&t started with searches, and looked at 72 properties. identified 17 that were workal. contacted all those property owners. only one was available. it was feasible and that's 590 second avenue. we worked with the staff to
minimize the design to shorten the enclosure and push them far back as possible from the roof line. the planning aspect -- the second analysis of the area, reached back out to all 17 property owners in the area. we didn't see one additional twist with use of space from the facility. we've heard comments about radio frequency initiative that the big concern for the appellants here, the proposed facility complies with the fcc rules. by the city's -- [indiscernible]
the city cannot decide the matter on basis of the fact of radio frequency. in terms of the sun light impact, they say it removes remove --shading from the prope. the appellant characterized that a significant, our professional study showed that it was -- it would not -- upper deck, there's no new shading throughout most of the spring and summer. minimal new shading, less than 2% total shading it annually. lower deck already shaded most
of the time. it will be less than 1% of new shading annually. the rear yard, it's already shaded. mostly it's just a sliver of new shading. it will be amounting to one third of 1%. i do want to say that the other issue is esthetic design. this is not one of a kind. there are similar structures like this. the appellant's pointed to small wireless facility. i want to make sure the point is made that small cells serve different purposes. we need this site to close this gap. this is the best available least intrusive use. i request that you deny the appeal, affirm the planning
commission unanimous approval and approve the application. thank you very much. >> president walton: thank you so much ms. blackstone and mr. shank. i don't see any questions from any of my colleagues. >> supervisor safai: thank you president walton. just a general question from ms. how do these delays impact the overall service in cost and the ability for the regular citizens in san francisco to access service and how does that impact our digital divide in san francisco? >> well, i know we spoke about this. there's definitely quite bit of attention on the digital divide
in neighborhoods more moderately income neighborhoods. you will be surprised that inner rich common -- richmond, it's tough to get a site located. sometimes those are areas that actually have the worse service. same thing in areas of the pacific heights. it does delay us being able to provide the best service possible. i think right now, as everyone knows, everybody wants to have the fastest service and the most available and robust coverage. it's something we've been trying to achieve. we've been working on this one for three years. >> supervisor safai: thank you mr. chair. >> president walton: thank you so much supervisor safai. i do see supervisor mar?
>> commissioner mar: thank you. i had a few questions for ms. blackstone and at&t. >> the appellants were the most vocal. i did have follow-up conversations with them. in addition during -- we were scheduled five times at the the planning commission. there was quite bit of notification with that as well. we ultimately finally in this year, got the approval. that was the extent of that reach.
>> supervisor mar: i have a question, more for aaron star from the planning staff. can you explain what preference 7 site is? >> i think i'm going to let onef our wireless experts describe that for us. >> hello supervisors. >> supervisor mar: i have a simple question. can you explain what a preference 7 site is? that was referenced for this publication. >> yes.
6 and 7 would be sites which have -- they are classified 7 because they are not one of the first five. they are not the most preferred site. >> supervisor mar: i noticed in the appeal for issue number one, they thought preference 7 sites like this, do types of microwireless facilities, -- disfavored, i guess. can you explain why that is from
the planning perspective? why micro wireless installation like this will be disfavored in a residential area like this? >> since the first five instances given to places that are selected as public use, that would be the difference. we do not want to favor siting these on residential uses. that's why it would be disfavored. in case there's no other availability of another person -- it does come down the case when preference 7 site that is available.
some of these conditions will be things like, if they have done their due diligence, if it has been proved that they are retaining the fcc regulations and that sort. if the design is not very intrusive on the preference 7 site, to make it as less intrusive as possible. >> preference 7 is the least favored. if you look at this whole neighborhood, every single building was preference 7 except rossi. that's why it took us a long time going back and forth incorporating the community's input and working with the planner to move things around
and get it to a point where the planner thought it would work and the commission unanimously approved. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i don't have any other questions. >> president walton: thank you, so much supervisor mar. seeing no other names on the roster for questions, i would invite members of the cub who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal to please press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. you will have up to two minutes. please call the first speaker. i would also ask anyone not on the board of supervisors to please turn off your cameras at this time. thank you. >> clerk: thank you mr. president. i believe we have 18 listeners in the queue. operations do we have any callers who are actually ready to make public comment in
support of the project and opposition to the appeal? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. can you check to make sure that we have the line connected? mr. president, i believe we do not have any callers in the queue. however, i think it's important if i make a statement that if any of the callers were listening want to provide public comment in opposition to the appeal, you should press star 3 now to get in line. operations, do we have the public comment line connected? >> the bridge is still up. we have no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, so much.
>> president walton: thank you so much. public comment is now closed. lastly, we will invite up the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you will have up to three minutes. mr. green? >> i listened to the arguments. i like to make a few points. one of the points at&t made which maybe out of order, which was a public safety initiative is on the 700 meg hertz band. it doesn't have the same difficulty of coverage as 5g, the higher frequency. i would expect they would have
decent coverage without intruding further into the neighborhood. i dispute the 2% of shading the screen will cause is minimum. the study that at&t purchased minimize the effect of loss sun on the screen. they don't address only the shadow on the surface of the deck. we sit on the edeck. we walk on the deck. we look around us. the impact is much greater than the implication of that study. the c.p.c. says the design must not be intrusive. [please stand by]
>> president walton: thank you, mr. green, and i would like to say now that this public hearing has been held and is now filed. as previously discussed, we will take up the discussion approval or disapproval the conditional use authorization at 590 second avenue. i believe i see supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you,
president walton. i want to make sure that i have a good discussion before i come to my decision where i stand on the issue. after hearing both appellants and our planning department as well as the project sponsor, you know, to just looking at this project, you know, and the appeal alone, and identifying this, you know, as the least favorable site, you know, even with the planning department's advice for a set back, but knowing that it could only be a limited set back on the roof and without having the appellant identify alternative sites, you know, my impression is that there seems to be that
options are out there. even for the appellants, it took them quite an effort during the pandemic to gather signatures for this appeal. all -- all in all, i think i'm prepared today, would really like to make the motion to reject item 20 and approving item 21 and 22, and that is where i'm at. >> president walton: supervisor
peskin, do you have anything to add? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president. would like to, when the time is appropriate, to make some amendments and comments. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. there is a motion and a second. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. colleagues, i've been to a number of these hearings and appeals, and let me make some kinds of contentions that are opposite to the assertions by the council for the applicant, at&t. first of all, insofar as this does require a conditional use, this board of supervisors has the right and has exercised
that right in the past to grant the appeal or not. the federal preemptions are limited to issues around radio frequency, radiation, not to the other conditions pursuant to section 303 of the planning code. and i think that there are plenty there, and let me take them in no particular or the. the use has to be necessary, beneficial, and desirable. it is for this board to decide on appeal de novo. we are hearing this new. we do not have to rely on the planning commission, albeit they obviously struggled with this over a number of hearings.
but i don't believe that at&t has proven necessarily. i concur with the appellant of this notion that first responders and van -- band 14 has not been proven. in fact, the city just invested tens of millions of dollars into a new public safety 8 megahertz system, so that finding cannot be made by the applicant. the notion that there are significant gaps in coverage has not been proven or independently verified by the applicant. relative to the findings under 303, that this will not have any injury to property or improvements in the vicinity, i believe that the appellant,
relative to the contention around shadows, around the unsightly rooftop additions, has set those forth in a way that is sufficient for us to make findings to support supervisor chan's motions, so i wanted to state those record, and as i stated for the record earlier, i am seconding supervisor chan's motion. >> president walton: thank you for that, supervisor peskin. i don't see anyone else on the roster. madam clerk, would you please call the roll on the motion to reject item 20 and approve items 21 and 22? >> clerk: supervisor walton, on the motion to reject item 20 and approve 21 and 22 -- [roll call]
it's appropriating 104.9 million to small businesses, [inaudible] youth learning initiatives, san francisco schools and city college dual enrollment classes and to deappropriate 28.2 million of business fee revenue and placing approximately $25 million in reserve fiscal year 20 through fiscal year 21. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster -- supervisor haney, i do see your hand.
>> supervisor haney: sorry. i was physically raising my hand. thank you, president walton, and thank you, colleagues, for your partnership in developing this supplemental appropriation. i also want to thank the mayor and city controller for shaping this. this was the result of a projected surplus in the current year of $125 million, and we worked together as a committee, as well as with the mayor and all of you to develop a consensus spending plan that will direct resources and support to the people most impacted during this pandemic, including small businesses, families, tenants, artists, and vulnerable residents. our focus was on priorities and needs that simply could not wait and needed investment now. these will keep small businesses open, fight the opioid epidemic, support our
children and families, and ensure tenants can stay in their homes. it is crucial that the surplus funds that we have be put directly into the small businesses and hands of residents that are suffering. for the past year, businesses have been forced to shutdown or drastically reduce their hours. another $13.2 million will
support the deferral of business registration fee and license payments that were scheduled due from may 2021 to november 2021. by allocating this funding to businesses with less than 25 million in gross receipts, this will allow nearly 80,000 total business filers to defer their payments. an additional 15 million in funding will go toward implementing legislation passed by supervisor stefani to waive business recommendation fees for businesses most affected by the stay at home order, which we have already passed. due to travel restrictions, we also saw a significant decrease in profits from the hotel tax, which it was dedicated to funding arts and cultural programs. through this spending, $24.1 million will go towards
[inaudible] this past year, we also saw, as we know, a huge and difficult challenging year for youth and families marked by the drastic shift to distance learning, and so this spending plan includes 15 million to support closing learning gaps in the upcoming summer together program. i want to thank supervisors chan, ronen, and melgar for your leadership and cosponsorship to help our youth during this extremely difficult time. it also supplements the support for youth with an initiative to expand summer internships for sfusd high school students in partnership with opportunities of all, and i want to thank supervisor mar for his leadership and support the continuance of the family relief fund, which supervisor mar introduced in the summer of 2020 to provide relief to undocumented families who are
not eligible for other forms of state aid. and lastly, and i know i spoke about this when the supplemental was originally introduced, it includes new funding for outreach to address the overdose crisis in our city and overdose prevention in the hotel rooms and on the streets. i want to thank you for your support, and mayor breed, and the controller. i know we're in the process of planning for our budget for the next two fiscal years, and i think what we were able to do here to address some of our most urgent priorities is something we can continue
moving forward. i want to thank abbie, who worked so hard in my office who worked so hard with your offices, and i want to thank you, again, for your support and partnership. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor haney. supervisor ronen. sorry. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, president. and thank you, supervisor haney, and abigail, for all your work putting this together. i had worked very closely with my colleagues, supervisor chan and melgar and haney on this $14 million supplemental summer together program. something came to my attention today that gave me pause to move money forward at this time.
a group called together s.f. has been claiming or has -- it's unclear to me -- an official role in summer together, which means, again, the -- am i hearing echoing? can you hear me okay? >> clerk: through the president, everyone should mute their system while supervisor ronen is speaking. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. let me know if you can't hear me okay. again, the effort that was put together by supervisor haney, melgar, the mayor, and myself to ensure that every student that wants summer programming has access to it. i don't know the role that this group is playing in its effort, have never met its leaders, and am confused about its
intentions. its text or social media posts, asking for people to come help them, reaching every student and asking them to sign up and volunteer. the logo of the summer together has the logo of together s.f. mixed on the same logo, and all of this is very concerning to me. is the ownership of this work and the ownership of summer together taking away outreach work from groups otherwise
connected to sfusd and the kids and work with sfusd kids, like, after school programs and nonprofits that know the kids very deeply. how can this argue that i've never heard of prior to today claim ownership over this program when it's never reached out to any of the supervisors that have been involved in this effort. what is its connection to hearsay media, which is registered as a lobby organization, as a 501-c-4 but portrays itself as a news organization? it's possible that nothing nefarious is going on here, but i have problem giving money to a partner that no one seems to know anything about. obviously, right now is a hyperpoliticized moment at our public schools at the worst
time for it to be happening, and -- and this board of supervisors, and i just want to thank my colleagues so much for this, have really been laser focused on the kids and the harm that they've been experiencing, and what they've had to deal with after a year of distance learning and isolation. supervisor melgar have been working with dcyf to address these needs, and we need to reach out to philanthropists to deal with this, but over time, our intent is to move to 100% private funding. i feel comfortable asking for
philanthropic assistance. our of our city's political factions have been united in our effort to help students, and we need to keep it that way. i'm very comfortable with this organization that i've never -- i'm very uncomfortable with this organization that i've never heard of, the political attachment it has, the politicization of the website, the logos. colleagues, i don't know what's going on here, but i'm very upset to learn about this for the first time today.
with that, colleagues, i'm going to ask to duplicate this file, and i will move to amend the original file on page 1, line 1, and replace the $104 million -- $104,900,000 and subtract the $15 million from the summer together effort from the larger budget supplemental. on page 1, line 4, i would also replace the 104,900,000 with
the 89,900,000. on page 6, i would delete the phrase children, youth, and their families. on page 2, line 9, again, replace the 104,900,000 with 89,900,000. again, line 4, delete children, youth, and their families. page 17, replace 17,700,000 with 9.9 million in the original budget supplemental. [please stand by] second,
>> supervisor chan: yes, please, president walton. i -- i mean, i had a lot of feelings around this, and i think ideally i would have loved it for it to be moving it forward and be able to put the $15 million on reserve, but i think that is more or less a technical question, and maybe the city attorney can help answer, but i think, really, especially, though, the goal, i am aligned with supervisor ronen in term of the goal and what you're trying to accomplish here. i am going to keep talking about this, about the fact that public dollars should be public used and should be held accountable, and we should have transparency around how these dollars are spent and how the
>> supervisor chan: it's the reason why i'm supporting the motion. the goal is the same. the goal to say that let's hold on this $15 million, what can we do to make sure that we get clarification. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm trying to catch myself up. this is the first that i've learned about an issue with this item. having not been part of the
complicated deliberations of putting this package together, are there pieces of this that need to move forward in the next two weeks that we wouldn't want to hold the whole thing back for? >> president walton: thank you. i'll let supervisor ronen answer the question. i do believe everything goes forward with the piece carved out. >> supervisor ronen: i'm not aware of the planning. if we get all our questions answered and feel comfortable and are able to vote on this not next week, we don't have a board meeting next week but the following week. that will be the first vote. we would delay it by one meet. we're going to have our second vote on the full supplemental. the delay will be delay of one week. i can't imagine it's going to --
as someone who one of the chief sponsors of this, i wouldn't delay it if i thought it was going to up-end the entire program. i'm pretty shocked that i had no concept -- the reason this was brought to my attention is because i got an e-mail from a constituent saying, do you realize that this group together is involved in this effort and who they are funded by and who they are involved by and the heads and it's been something i've been looking at and unravelling today in between meetings. i'm very uncomfortable with what i've learned and read so far. i have had the chance to talk to maria stewart. she didn't have the a lot of information about this group. if you go on their website, there's very little information.
it's just constantly asking you to register and to sign up. the same founder are the exact same founders of the hearsay media. i find it upsetting. on social media they are calling out volunteers to make sure they sign up. all of this makes me extremely uncomfortable. i don't know who these people are. i don't know if this is taking work away from other groups. it seems to be a politically involved organization. this has to be about the kids and that's what we've been frustrated by all year. i've been trying to take all of
this outside the political realm and focus on the well-being of our children who are suffering. here's this effort that we're working on. all of a sudden, there's this group that's involved that seem really political to me in my first glance of the organization that nobody informed us who's actually has a logos, claiming ownership of this program and is hosting the website. all of it makes me incredibly uncomfortable. until i get questions answered, i don't feel comfortable appropriating $15 million of public funds to an effort where a mysterious organization is involved. i don't know how. >> president walton: thank you, so much supervisor ronen.
supervisor mandelman did that answer your question? >> supervisor mandelman: i understand the concern. >> supervisor haney: i wanted to ask if deputy city attorney pierson can clarify exactly what will happen here in terms of pross and time -- process and timing in response to supervisor mandelman's questions, we want to make sure everything else in here moves forward as exactly planned. we want to get this money out to small businesses. then essentially supervisor ronen has some questions she wants to explore and other supervisors have similar questions. we want to give a little more time to have those questions answered. can you clarify for the board
here what exactly will happen and the timing and help us underscore that everything will move forward as planned? >> good afternoon. if i understand the motion, the file will be duplicated and supervisor ronen has proposed to amend one version of it to remove this particular appropriation. if the board approve that amendment and pass it through today. that will move forward. all of the appropriations exceptor if the one that you seeing would move forward on the same timetable. the provision that's being struck out would remain in the duplicated version. i understand that supervisor ronen is proposing to continue that item through the first reading after recess. it can be heard there at that meeting. it could be voted on and voted
second time the following week or amendments could be made at that time. >> if we came back, we then amended that item so that it just passed the $15 million in it, could we then vote -- that would then be able to be voted on for the first time and then come back the next week? >> that will be the effective duplicating it and moving everything else forward. you will be left with the duplicated version that contains only remaining appropriations that hasn't been acted on by the board. >> supervisor haney: we'll deal with this particular item at that time and that will be the first vote on that item at that time assuming that --
[indiscernible]-we are all committed to funding summer and supporting our kids this summer, 100%. i think that our colleagues have the right and the responsibility to make sure that those funds are being used with integrity and that questions get answered. i appreciate that' >> president walton: thank you. preview melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, president. thank you supervisor ronen and chan and haney. i did as we spoke earlier today -- i did notice the organization on the press release when it was sent out a few weeks ago. i did call the mayor's office and asked about it in detail.
i was assured that the organization footprint on the initiative would be very minimal and only in the portion that is privately funded not publicly funded. after i talked to you supervisor ronen, i did look at the website. i did see all of the things that you pointed out which was a bit surprising to me. i also think that we should have funnel transparency. i'm totally okay with waiting a couple of weeks to make sure that all of our is are dotted and ts are crossed. i wanted to point out that the way that summer programming works as supervisor chan noted well, the funding starts flowing in may.
it doesn't get reimbursed until june. because it's on a reimbursement basis. even if we ask on this in a couple of weeks, it's well within the time line for folks to have this money added to their contract and dispersed after they do the work when they need it in june. i think that this is just fine. thank you so much. >> supervisor safai: i'm just hearing about this for the first time. some of this doesn't make sense to me. i guess what i'm trying to understand is, we're talking about difference between the public money versus the private foundation money. i guess i haven't heard that articulated. what the concern is there's a group out there that's claiming involvement that would have
something to do with this program but how does that impact the public money? i could understand more if you were referring to the foundation side. it's more of the public money, how is that impacted? the second question i would ask, i'm absolutely fine with delaying to get more information. would it make sense to go ahead and vote and then do the research between now and the second vote? sometimes we do that as well. whenever way everyone decide to do it, i'm fine. definitely want to get to the bottom of it. i don't really know what we're reacting to. i wanted to put it out there to say, doesn't sound like any way the public money would be jeopardized. we control the public money. we designate the public money to children youth and family. it doesn't sound like that is in
jeopardy of being implemented in a way that we feel comfortable with. >> president walton: thank you. >> supervisor ronen: i'm happy to answer. good question supervisor safai. coming before this board will be a $25 million from the summer together program. the very little understanding that i have now. the reason this is last minute, i learned this today in between our t.a. and trying to figure this out. i wish i had time to get all of my questions answered before this. i didn't know about it until
today. the little understanding i have from conversations with the director is that the money that is going to sf together or together sf is from that $25 million crank start money. i don't know what it's for. i heard they are handling the website for summer together. they are claiming on social media that they are doing the outreach for students summer together. that deeply worries me that this organization that none of us
heard of, should not be the organizations that worked with sfusd kids for decades. more importantly -- what i have been told is this $15 million appropriation is not going to together sf at all. the reason i'm bringing it up now is because i am very uncomfortable. if this is how we're going to have public private partnerships around our school and around the -- summer together program which is connected to rise which supervisor melgar and i working on for the next five years. this cannot be the way that we operate. mayor's on its own goes into contract with an organization where there's no transparency or
input. this organization is connected to a media outlet that is registered as a 501c4. which is generally how lobbyist register. there are a ton of open questions about what exactly is going on here. i think as supervisor chan has been saying over the last several board meetings, we've been on opposite side of things but it's the same issue. when there are public private partnerships transparency is that much more important. because we are starting these initiatives as public private partnerships as we are asking for philanthropic support, we need to make sure that isn't utilized and politicalized in a way to meet an agenda that has nothing to do with the well-being of our kids. i don't want anything to do with any program that are pushing a
political agenda that is separate from the agenda of focusing 100% on the well-being of our kids. i cannot say how much research i done on this organization that that's what's happening here. >> if anyone was using money, city moneys or foundation money to push political agenda, it will be in contradiction of their nonprofit rules and bylaws. that obviously will be a concern. we're not there. you don't know, we don't know. we're looking and trying to uncover. what ivy street trying -- what i was trying to separate was the $15 million we were allocating. $15 million is going to dcyf. i saw the press release in the
title. what you're talking about and we're talking about is the $15 million. the $15 million that we're allocating for the summer program is going to the dcyf. i don't anticipate any change in that? >> supervisor ronen: what i'm saying supervisor safai, it's all going to support the same program. the name of that program is logo. it's reputation and success. that money is going to being mixed together to push it forward. as someone who's been working on this nonstop, this academic school year began, i'm pretty frustrated that nobody has talked to me or reached out to
me about this organization's involvement. i probably didn't pick it up when i was reading the press release because together sf and summer together is so similar. supervisor melgar is much more careful reader than i am i didn't pick up it was a new organization. that's weird to me. why does it have the same name practically? i'm uncomfortable by the fact that the people who have been leading this effort on the board of supervisors had no idea about the involvement of this organization and doesn't know anything about this organization. we can't find answers by looking online. all of that makes me nervous. >> supervisor safai: sound like in the end there's no jeopardy to the program. nothing wrong with investigating and coming back. i guess what i was going to say,
i don't imagine us changing our approach to the vote for the $15 million for the summer program. that's still going to go forward. there might be some administrative things that change. ultimately we're going to still go forward with providing this larger package to help struggling kids, students and families in the summer. is that correct? >> supervisor ronen: yes, i'm hell bent in waking up from this hellish year of distance learning and social, emotional, academic loss that come with it. i'm also hell bent in doing that in a way that doesn't push anybody's political agenda but 100% focused on the kids. >> supervisor safai: got it. thank you. >> president walton: thank you supervisor safai and supervisor ronen. >> supervisor preston: thank you president walton. let me start by thanking supervisor ronen for surfacing these concerns and for speaking
to them what i think is a good proposal of how we address them with duplicated file and moving the rest of this forward while getting some answers on that. i will admit to not having fully researched this either. i will say in the 20 minutes we've been discussing this and jumping around a little, everything i see only heightens the concerns that supervisor ronen is raising. even without what we see in this last year, we know we need to be on guard for how public private relationships with third parties work. we need to be very careful about misuse of private entities. i think that even during the pandemic in particular, where we
are both more dependent on private dollars but also where there's an even greater risk of misuse. we've seen nonprofits emerge the fiasco this summer with 501c4 that was uncovered by mission local as a advocacy body with more questions than answers on the homeless issue. in an attempt top take the tragedy of homelessness and rally around a 501c4. we done know at this point. i can tell from a quick search that we have together sf as a group, that appears to be advocating for a charter
amendment on its website. to make board of education an appointed body rather than an elected body. that seem not like the group. that should be essential partner. the affiliation that was brought to my attention by constituents between together sf and the civic action lab that supervisor ronen mentioned, -- hearsay media, which is covered in mission local and we have been trying to get answers from hearsay media when they reach out to us as journalist as who funds them. they refuse to disclose any information and appear to be another press office for the
administration. i love to be corrected. i would love to hear who's backing these various entities and have transparency. it raises questions. i appreciate supervisor ronen as one of the principle co-authors along with the leadership of supervisor chan and supervisor melgar. it's hard to change direction and push pause on something that will benefit so many people once launched. we owe a duty to get some answers and and also look what is their m.o.u.
all these things have been answered. i definitely support the direction that you're taking it and thank you for raising it. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor preston. supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. i totally understand and i respect my colleagues who raised concerns here. at this time, i haven't seen any evidence to support some of the claims. i heard today i understand that where you're coming from. i don't feel comfortable actually delaying funding to a city department for summer
programming for our kids. i don't know if that's what your motion is doing today if we are not voting on the full package. if we do duplicate the file. i don't feel comfortable delaying that money, delaying a vote on having that money in place for this program. which you worked so diligently on which i will respect you for. everyone has done that. i'm having trouble understanding why we would delay a vote on funding, desperate funding that we need for this program. >> president walton: supervisor stefani would you like deputy city attorney pierson to clarify again, this would not delay the funding? >> supervisor stefani: it sound like you just clarified that. i won't be voting to support a
organizationally. >> president walton: i wanted to add my stance. there seems there could be some misrepresentation on behalf of what this organization's role is and the work for the summer. i think we need 100% clarity on what the role what the other organization is claiming. what information is federal government to our families -- gr families. as nonprofit leader for several years, when funding for the same program for several sources, it's not always that simple. we should clearly understand where resources are going.
even if it's completely -- $25 million public dollars. we're going to get philanthropic dollars, we need to be clear on who's delivering services and what will happen as a result for families. i think it's important we separate politics from this work. i think we need more information. i want to thank supervisor ronen for bringing that up. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. aside in i know little about together sf and have been impressed by work they've done
to engage san franciscans, i do think that in my mind, they are connected to the advocacy organization. i think the desire members of this board to do little bit more digging to understand exactly what all the relationships are, is not an unreasonable one. i'm hoping two weeks from now, we'll decide to vote for it. i'm also not hearing from anyone this two week delay is going to significantly hamper this program. i'm inclined to go along with a couple of more weeks.
>> president walton: thank you supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor chan: i think the last point i want to make, here's another piece of it like i said earlier, that we've been working with the city departments trying to implement the program. we have yet to further clarify. at that time, i trust that they'll work this out. now alarming involvement with together sf. let me explain why it's alarming. we are supposed to launch a city registration site where the families can register and know which summer programming really is. there was a question that was
put on the board by me and agreed by my colleagues here, it's going to be really mindful of the data these family will input about their family information. this is about kids. i want to make sure it's a city-own registration website. with together sf involvement not knowing what this organization is about and now confirm and verify that they are a 501c4. i think that is the data sharing to make sure that data is secured and with the jurisdiction and custody of the city and county of san francisco which we should be responsible for as families register for their summer program.
>> president walton: thank you supervisor chan. i don't see any other colleagues on the roster. we do have a motion from supervisor ronen that was seconded by supervisor chan, i believe duplicate the file and separate this portion of resources and to continue to the april 6th meeting. >> the clerk helped me clarify. i can clarify for what you what
i'm doing. thanks our wonderful clerk, angela. it's my single privilege to duplicate the file. i done that i'm making a motion to amend the original file as i laid out in detail. what i did by laying that out, i just removed the $15 million supplemental appropriation for the summer together and summer program from the overall larger budget supplemental and leaving that in the duplicated file. the motion that i'm making now is to amend the original file as i stated removing the $15 million from it. does that make more sense? >> president walton: definitely. on the motion to amend the original file, is there a second?
duplicated file now. can i make a motion to strike except for the $15 million supplemental? >> president walton: is that the appropriate motion >> clerk: yes, mr. president. >> supervisor ronen: after we vote -- why don't i make a motion to strike everything but the $15 million appropriation and move to continue the item to april 6th board meeting. >> president walton: all in one motion? >> clerk: that's fine mr. president. >> supervisor melgar: second. >> president walton: we have a motion made by supervisor ronen and seconded by supervisor melgar. [roll call vote]
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: this motion is passed unanimously. >> clerk: the item continued to april 6th. >> president walton: thank you. we are now at item 25. >> clerk: it was considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on monday 22nd and not forwarded as a committee report. the item is not before the board this afternoon.
>> president walton: please call the roll on item 25. >> clerk: i believe it's been moved. we're moving to item 26 mr. president. >> president walton: my apologies. >> clerk: item 26 was considered by the public safety and neighborhood services committee at a special meeting on thursday march 18th. it was recommended as a committee report. i believe supervisor stefani dissented in the committee.
>> president walton: supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: the ordinance before us today is base on a basic and moral idea as reopen businesses should rehire and not replace their laid off workers. i want to start by thanking members of the public safety neighborhood services committee who have considered recommended and heard me speak on this item before. i will be brief today. this item was referred back to committee to make a final set of amendments in response to robust input and feedback from the labor council, chamber of commerce, and other stakeholders. we have tailor the ordinance by industry from our existing worker retention laws. we narrowed the rehiring requirements removing the requirements to rehire laid off workers to positions they would have to be trained for. instead, focus on positions they just previously held. these changes along with our earlier amendment to the
emergency version of this ordinance, strike a careful. balance between supporting unemployment workers and supporting businesses. we can and must do both. this has been long and difficult process. i'm grateful to all the employer and labor groups for the dialogue over the past few weeks and this policy has been in effect. we've listened. i think this ordinance is stronger for it and strikes the right balance. colleague, i'm grateful for your time and consideration of this important groundbreaking protection for working people in san francisco. i'm grateful for your support in passing and reenacting the emergency ordinance that preceded this. i ask for your support today. as i said back in june when we first voted to adapt this policy, the unemployment crises created by this pandemic is not unique to san francisco. but this is a labor town and we are uniquely positioned to lead
and addressing it. with the back to work ordinance we are. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much supervisor mar. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, i wanted to thank supervisor mar for working so diligently, being open to amendments and really listening to the voice of both employers and organized labor and just echo what he said. so much what's incorporated in law is mirror what's existing agreements that have been negotiated between employers and workers. i appreciate him working with employers in the industry and particularly the restaurant work industry that would have been greatly impacted by the first draft of this. those in the smaller grocery industry and those are some of the conversations that we had as well as listening to the labor council. i really appreciate that. i think it's a fair balance.
this enactment, there's a sunset clause to this. this will sunset one year after enactment or date the emergency order is over. this is a good transition piece of legislation to allow people the opportunity to return to their place of employment. i wanted to thank supervisor mar all those that worked on this. >> president walton: thank you supervisor safai. seeing no other members of the roster. madam clerk, please call the roll for item 26. [roll call vote]
>> clerk: there are 10 ayes and 1 no with supervisor stefani in dissent. >> president walton: this ordinance is passed on first reading. please call item 27. >> clerk: items 27 and 28 were considered by the rules committee on regular meeting monday march 22nd and forwarded as committee report. item 27 was recommended as a committee report. it's a motion to approve the mayor's nomination of the appointment of carol isen of the human resources director of the city. pursuant to section 10.103.
>> president walton: thank you so much. i don't see anyone on the roster. i do personally want to make a statement. i'm going to actually allow for my colleagues to speak first. i do see supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. i did want to see -- i assume that interim director isen is here. i want to ask her a question if that's allowed? >> president walton: that's definitely allowed. >> supervisor haney: thank you director isen for coming forward and for being willing to accept up in this role during this very challenging time. i enjoyed my conversations with you and some of the comments you made. i'm sure other colleagues will
speak to this around equity and racial equity within our workforce being really to commit to concrete ways. there was one question that i want to ask you. that's specifically how you challenge around our temporary employees. my concern that i have specifically and we had a hearing around this is, the ways
in which at times the civil service process can be circumvented by the use of category 18 temporary staff. i know that nearly one in five of our local 21 members are currently category 18. these are city workers who do ongoing work like i.t. professionals and analyst. i want to make sure you have the opportunity to discuss how would address this issue, specifically. >> thank you for the question. thank you members of the board
of supervisors for considering my nomination. this is an issue that i understand very well. it has been around in one form or another for the expire time that i been in city government. presently, category 18 is actually refers to charter section 10.104 that has more than 18 categories of various forms of non-civil service employment in the city. it is used quite extensively for professional work where either funds are limited, work is limited and projects are limited. department do have to submit justifications. they go through an approval process. we look at them and refer -- review them. we don't have an army to police all of it. we do have now language in the
labor agreement with local 21 to look at these category 18 appointments to evaluate each of them. where appropriate to speed up and provide civil service examinations for the position. we are restarting our discussions next week. during that time, a number of appointments both in local 21 and city wide has dropped. the vast majority of our city employees are merit-based civil service appointments and hold those jobs through that system. it is a concern that i understand. we're looking closely at and attempting to step up our
review. >> supervisor haney: thank you for that. one thing i would like to ask from you, if you could potentially, assuming you get confirmed, bring forward some sort of plan for us about how you're going to help remedy this and make some clear steps you will take to address this specifically. i know it's been a concern for a long time. i'm hoping that you assuming you become human resources director and the one who fixes it. i hope we can have a compliment from -- commitment from you on that.
i do hope that we can have your leadership in addressing issues of temporary employees. thank you. >> president walton: thank you supervisor haney. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you president, walton. this is a very critical and important appointment. i do believe that we have done our due diligence vetting ms. isen. it is good that we have this conversation here too at full board. the reason why i put myself on the roster, i have asks ms. isen specific question.
for me, my concern during the rule committee that i have asked specifically is really about misconduct of our city department heads and executive in these different city departments. just identifying there's sexual harassment or public corruption and really discrimination and racism, ageism. all of that. often times by -- [indiscernible] we know that has gone on far too long and it's a pattern to results in the lawsuits that we see in the public realm. what i have asked her to address is really what is her approach. to make sure that there's a check point at every level to make sure that behaviors don't fester and go far too long and
really making sure that our department helps and their executives really provide a safe, healthy and fair working environment while workers -- they are really our asset. >> thank you supervisor chan for that question. it's a very broad question. i'm going to start with the first part of it, to just talk about my thoughts about how -- first of all, i stated in the rules committee that i do intend to set the tone from the top. i'm very ethical person. i'm very honest. i'm very respectful.
i think i'm known for this, i'm a problem solver. i can work across many aisles and many groups and constituents and employees i know our city employees very well. i have long-standing relationships with city employees. many of us have been quite distressed at recent events that we have seen and witnessed and been around and quite unhappy about that. i intend to do everything in my power to set a new tone in city employment. i would like to be able to establish resources with an audit function that we don't have at the h.r. not just when we receive complaints and we receive many of them, i received three major complaints about work climate in various places.
being a city employee is a high calling. it's a privilege to be one. i would hope all our employees feel that same way. the second part of your question has to do with work climate and work culture with the employees having right to come to work free of prejudice, harassment, discrimination. we owe this to our employees. this is an essential part of daily life in the city. i want to start, i spoke about this at the rules committee, by
promulgating much stronger policy for respect in the workplace and anti-bullying. we have broad language that you find in the charter. i want to have much more detailed language. i want to increase the consequences for conduct and to make those consequences much swifter and immediate and happening at the department instead of having appointing officers and their whole structuring taking responsibilities for the enforcement of these policies and for addressing poor conduct in the workplace. i do think that languishing complaints that sit at h.r. for year or two years or longer, allow the circumstances to continue and send a bad message, counterproductive message that anything goes.
that's something i want to change. >> president walton: supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much president walton. i want to start by saying thank you to ms. isen for engaging and talking with me a couple of times. i really appreciated our conversation and your perspective. i also heard a bunch from folks supporting you and also folks who are not quite as supportive.
i wanted to reiterate some of the points that i made to you and i talked to and also provide what i understood from you and i want to say that it was a really good conversation. i appreciate it your thoughtfulness and your care in those answers. one of the definitions of corruption in the government setting is the abuse of entrusted power for a private gain. i think as it applies to h.r. in our city, having been in a city employee for decades now, i have seen that abuse of power. not just for a personal gain but also for the gain of groups of people. the groups of people that the hiring manager are comfortable with. which tend to be people who look like us or people who are same gender.
it is a form of corruption. just like with the corruption that we've been doing with at the board of supervisors that issues with money, this kind of corruption in h.r. thrives when we have no system to catch them. i think that you are a really competent person with a lot of skills who has a lot of experience in this setting. i'm moved by what you say in terms of -- my expectations you will do much more than that. i want to be clear about that. that's what i told you. it is not just about auditing and holding people accountable, which we must absolutely do because we haven't done enough. i also want you to rewrite the policies and procedures. i want you to have a professional development plan for everybody. not just managers but for everybody. i want you to have professional development and training work
plan for managers, supervisors. i want you to take this bull by the horns and actually make our city advance and evolve and having an h.r. system that is responsive who are now and not yesterday. in the past couple of years, we have gone through a moment of reckoning about race and gender. we went through the metoo movement and black lives matter. i want the city to be able to have h.r. policies and procedures that are responsive to that moment in terms of advancing the careers of women and people of color, not just in hiring but also promoting them to leadership. which we have not done.
when we talk about m.t.a. can't deliver, that's related to staffing issues. are we sure we have the best people at the table. i know that we don't. if we look at the leadership across our city, it is not reflective of a diverse city. there's reasons for that. i think that what i would want is to help us create those systems and the culture will slowly change but it is a must that we have those systems that we are implementing them and that we hold people accountable. because i have to acknowledge that i've heard from a lot of people that i respect who are not totally convinced that you will do those things, i would beg you that if you are confirmed today by this board,
that you will proactively reach out to these employee associations who have suffered and still to this day have concerns about how they -- black employees are being treated and women treated within the city and you will engage with them. be able to gather, be able to work out a plan of action for how we're going to deal with these things. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much supervisor melgar. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: sorry, thank you. i am -- i have been having hard time making a decision on this appointment. it's not about you ms. isen personally at all, it's about the fact that i consider the
h.r. to be a broken department. what i would have loved to see is someone come in who hasn't been part of the department for so many years and hasn't been in leadership position for many years, that had a fresh pair of eyes and could look at starting and rebuilding something new. i say this it's broken, some of my colleagues mentioned, of course the scandal, which is awful and horrible for any of us to see. the disparities in wages and merits and promotions especially when it comes to black community. also, in the basic -- one of the basic and major roles departnt