>> good afternoon and welcome to the february 6, 2024 san francisco board of supervisors meeting. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> thank you mr. president. chan, present. dorsey, present. engardio, present. mandelman, present. melgar, present. peskin, present. preston, present. ronan, present. safai, present. stefani, present. walton, present. mr. president, all members are present. >> thank you madam clerk. the san francisco board of supervisors we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost

nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> 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. >> madam clerk, do we have any communications or announcements? >> yes, mr. president. the san francisco board of supervisors welcomes to attend

the meeting in the legislative chamber city hall, second floor room 250 or watch on channel 26 or view live stream at sfgovtv.org. submit public comment in writing send to bos@sfgov.org or use the u.s. postal service to the san francisco board supervisors. 1 dr. carlton b goodlett place, city hall, room 244 san francisco california 94102. to make a reasonable accommodation request under the american's with disabilities act or request language assistance please contact the clerk's office at least two business days in advance by calling 415-554-5184. thank you mr. president. >> thank you madam clerk. please call the consent agenda.

>> yes. items 1-11 are on consent and considered to be routine. if a member objects an item may be removed and considered separately. >> would any member like an item or item serveered? seeing none, roll call, please. >> on items 1-11, ronan aye. safai, aye. stefani, aye. walton, aye. chan, aye. dorsey, aye. engardio, aye. mandelman, aye. melgar, aye. peskin, aye. preston, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> those ordinances are finally passed. next item.

>> item 12, ordinance requiring the city to prioritize the city-owned parcel of land at 100 orizaba avenue (block/lot no. 7136/060) as a potential site for the new public library branch serving the oceanview, merced heights, ingleside, and lakeview neighborhoods, subject to environmental review, required approvals, and other applicable laws; and requiring departments to prioritize the expenditure of city funds for a new public library branch at that location. >> roll call. >> on item 12, ronan, aye. safai, aye. stefani, aye. walton aye. chan, aye. dorsey, no. engardio, aye. mandelman, no. melgar, no. peskin, aye. preston, aye. there are 8 ayes and 3 noes

with supervisors dorsey mandelman and melgar voting no. >> this ordinance is finally passed. next item, please. >> item 13- >> could you read 13 and 14 together madam clerk? >> 13 and 14 are two resolutions that pertain to the lease and use agreements to conduct flight operations at the san francisco international airport. itemthry approve the 2023 agreement between the city and for term of 10 years through june 30, 2033. and for item 14, this is approval of the agreement 2023 agreement between the city and starlux air lines company. doing business at starlux air lines north america to affirm the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings for both items. >> roll call please. >> on items 13 and 14, ronan,

aye. safai, aye. stefani, aye. walton, aye. chan, aye. dorsey, aye. engardio, aye. mandelman, aye. melgar, aye. peskin, aye. preston, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> those resolutions are adopted. madam clerk, please read item 15 and 16 together? >> two resolutions authorizing 2 contract modifications for contract administration for purchase of electrical material supplies and fixtures for city department. 15 authorize the third modification between the city and alameda electrical distrirbters new total amount

of $10.5 million with no change to total contract duration of may 1, 2018 through april 30, 2024 and for item 16, this item authorizes the 8 modification to contract between the city and buckle smith electric company to increase contract amount for total contract amount of $19.5 million with no change to the contract duration through june 30, 2024. >> same house same call, the rez solutions are adopted. >> item 17, ordinance to amend the planning administrative codes to correct tip graphical errors to clarify or simplify code language to affirm the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings. >> same house same call the ordinance pass first reading. next item, please.

>> item 18, ordinance amending the fire code to provide fire protection standards for the charging and storage of lithium-ion batteries used in powered mobility devices (such as electric bikes, scooters, skateboards, and hoverboards), prohibit use of damaged lithium-ion batteries in such devices, prohibit use of lithium-ion batteries assembled or reconditioned using cells removed from used batteries in such devices, and require the fire department to conduct an informational campaign; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to forward this ordinance to the california building standards commission upon final passage. >> colleagues, see no names on the rost, can we take same house same call? the ordinance pass first reading. thank you fire marshal coughlin. next item, please. >> item 19, ordinance prohibiting the recreation and park department and planning department from performing environmental review of, or otherwise implementing, a project to clean up and reconstruct the marina yacht harbor in a manner that would extend the west harbor marina by more than 150 feet from its current boundary. >> supervisors stefani.

>> thank you president peskin. i need to recuse from the vote. my husband and i own a boat in east harbor and informed by the city attorney office i cannot take place in the vote or have anything to do with it. >> thank you, motion to recuse supervisors stefani. take without objection and supervisors stefani is recused. supersizer safai. >> thank you colleagues. very happy to be here today on this issue. a lot of time and effort and energy talking with community, spending time listening to a real diverse set of stakeholders from across san francisco that have spoken load and clear about their position on the issue. i want to thank president peskin for working hand in hand with me on this, supervisor preston and chan for their

cosponsorship on this issue and there l the community members that have come out over the past couple months and really really organized around having their voices heard. something that i did not necessarily-i might have in the category of those that thought this is something we could take for granted. that this was a place that would always be there, always be a part of san francisco's ecosystem, but when the proposal came forward from rec and park to dramatically transform this area as a result of years of litigation because environmental cleanup has to happen on the site. there is contamination in the harbor that needs to be remediated and so the idea is, how are we going to achieve that? how are we going to preserve uses and also achieve environmental cleanup?

so, many constituents, many individuals in san francisco that care about this space felt as though their voice was being dismissed by rec and park. they were not being heard. they were not being listened to and we have gone through extensive community meetings where hundreds of people have shown up in person and i know many colleagues received thousands of e-mails from across san francisco expressing the concern. i just want to state very very clearly, this is about preserving uses. people that row, people that swim, people that learn to sail, this is a iconic and very very special part of san francisco. i have never partaken in any of those activities. i have never swam in the harbor, never rowed in the harbor and i don't know how to sail, but as part of this process, i have gone down and learned from and listened to people that are directly

involved in it and just for the record, i will be going down to a swimming club tomorrow to get in the bay and swim, so i have made that promise. it was intended to be last week, but because of the bad weather whee had to postpone and so i have made that promise, i will be down there tomorrow, and i'll just say this, when i walked into the saint francis yacht club, there were pictures on the wall of a olympic sailor that literally learned how to sail in the marina harbor. it is the place people-not just olympic sailors, but people and students that are part of the high schools in the area, swimmers that have extended their life and part of this, i know president peskin swims in the harbor and marina. this is a really important part of san francisco, so what we say with this legislation is, we want rec and park to go back

to the drawing board. we want them to preserve the space in front of the marina harbor. we want them not to extend the west harbor beyond a certain amount of footage, and we use the wave organ-we got a great letter today from the exploratorium. i dont know if you know that. you probably do. but, letter today saying how important and iconic this is for san francisco. such a broad set of stakeholders care about this, so we are not going to allow the west harbor to extend and then we believe that with real effort as has been done in many rec and park revitalization projects, we believe that philanthropy and additional resources accessed for this. look at india basin hundreds of millions of dollars are going into revitalize the site. not one penny of private dollars have been proposed for

this location and what that will help with is, additional cleanup, additional design and additional vision for this space. any of you that have been to the tunnel top area along the presidio, don't have to go far to see how far transformative philanthropy and private sector money and public money can remake a public space into something amazing and that is the opportunity we have here. we don't want to damage that, we dont want to diminish that, we want to preserve those uses and allow for environmental cleanup and for there to be a broad and majestic vision for the future and i say majestic because that is what i heard over and over and over again by the stakeholders and those involved in this place. we made adjustments in committee that talked about the wave organ. we allow for there to be room for a broader vision and again, i just want to specifically

thank aaron roach, evelyn graham leading the conversation in the community. joe bravo and others from keep the waterfront open. the dolphin club, east end rowing club, the saint francis yacht club, all the different sailing clubs and now the exploreatorium and host of every day san franciscans that care about this space. i think this is the right thing to do so i hope everyone will vote for this today. there are others that want to speak on it, but i thank everyone involved in this and really appreciated as i have when many other occasions working with president peskin on this hand in hand to insure we get the right piece of legislation done. thank you colleagues. >> thank you supervisors, safai. supervisors dorsey. >> thank you president peskin. i'm happy to support this and i will say that of the people who advocated for it, the one that

is closest to my heart is some of the advocacy around youth sailing. i represent treasure island in my district and we have treasure island sailing club that does a lot of great work with youth sailing. in a city that has a natural resource like the san francisco bay, i think the organizations that make sure we have equitable access to it for young people and supervisors who may swim in it this week and as i did some time ago with my former city attorney colleague the late buck--the more to encourage people to have access to the recreational opportunity the bay presents the better and i think when it comes to sailing. one thing i really appreciated about the yacht clubs and sailing community is that they recognize the importance of making sure thiisn't something that is only available to rich kids and i think this project would harm the youth sailing

program. it would eliminate the youth sailing program there so i'm happy to support this. >> thank you supervisor dorsey. supervisors ronan. >> thank you. this one has been a difficult one for me. mostly because of the incredible budgetary woes we fiend ourselves in and how rec and park i thought did a great job in trying to figure out how to meet the terms of the settlement agreement to do so in a way to save the general fund additional dollars et cetera. however, after tons of advocacy and seeing how many recreation users, how important this site is to so many of them, i am open to--however, it really is

going to be important for the mayor and future and board in the future to insure that this remains as neutral as possible, the bla gave several options how that could happen raising raething slip fees, whether charging for public parking, and we can't-asking rec and park whether they are willing to do that when they advocated a different solution to the issue, it is not going to work. it will be incumbent upon this board and mayor in the future to insure that happens, so i just wanted to say on the record how important i think it is to not putting undue burden on the general fund because of this change. sometimes we have to pay more to preserve the status quo and

in this case, it is pretty amazing to be able to dock your boat and look at the golden gate bridge. i dont think we'll have too few people wanting to do that, so i really encourage you all to increase those fees. but i do want to thank rec and park for being very thoughtful about this. and really want to recognize monica scott from rec and park who i really appreciated, came in my office and explained all the thinking behind this project. i think they did a great job and ultimately i also want to thank the public who really made it a priority to preserve this space in san francisco who ultimately went [indiscernible] i just hope this board acts

responsible in terms of the budget in the future. >> thank you supervisor and former budget chair ronan. very much appreciated. seeing no other names on the roster, and sensing the comments that i have heard-actually, no, we cannot do same house same call because we have a different house. roll call, please. >> ronan, aye. safai, aye. walton, aye. chan, aye. dorsey, aye. engardio, aye. mandelman, aye. melgar, aye. peskin, aye. preston, aye. there 10 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed first reading. madam clerk, takes us to item

20. >> item 20, resolution determining that the person-to-person, premise-to-premise transfer of a type-20 off-sale beer and wine liquor license to pink house by the bay llc, to do business as pink house by the bay, located at 800 bay street (district 2), will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco, in accordance with california business and professions code, section 23958.4; and requesting that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license. >> roll call. >> on item 20, ronan, aye. safai, aye. stefani, aye. walton, aye. chan, aye. dorsey, aye. engardio, aye. mandelman, aye. melgar, aye. peskin, aye. preston, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted. madam clerk, why don't we go to our 1 committee report.

>> item 25 considered by land use and transportation committee at regular meeting monday february 5. item 25 is resolution to oppose california state senate bill 951 unless amended and setting forth the city county of san francisco support for the california coastal act and the recognition of the value of the california coastal commission to enforce the california coastal act. >> supervisor engardio. >> thank you mr. chair. our coast is precious. it belongs to all of us. i never want the coastal commission to be hinderered in the ability to protect the coast. nearly 50 years ago the coastal act insidelined in the state constitution because the coast was under assaulted. created a coastal commission to

halt out of control destruction and encroachment on our scenic coast line by private property owners and suburbden sprawl. well before california voted on the coastal act, urban san francisco was already built out with housing all the way to the great highway. today senator wiener questions why the coastal zone has to zigzag into inland areas like a safeway parking lot or irish cultural center. senator wiener proposed a bill that seeks to update the coastal zone boundary. it doest nochange coastal act provisions to guarantee public access and protect sensitive environmental resources, it moves boardlines so there are no potential problems if for example, a area away from there coast wants to build housing. these potential problems can likely be resolved administratively without the need for legislation. senator wiener and san francisco planning department are active dialogue with the coastal commission.

we should let senator wiener and the coastal commission work through their process. it feels premature to vote on a resolution now when senator wiener and the coastal commission could reach a consensus that makes the resolution mute. i want to reserve judgment untle we see how the discussions play out. i heard some worry that getting rid of the coastal zone zigzag lines could clear the way for the development of the 50 story tower of sloat. i said the sloat tower is not real. it was proposed by a developer who wanted to stir up contversery because he didn't get his way. senator wieners proposed does not change local control or authority and doesn't help build a 50 story tower. that project is not consistent with local or state law and certainly is not consistent with the western shoreline plan within our control. we insure that tower never

happens. evefen it is outside the lines of the coastal zone. it is important to be a defender of our coast, which belongs to all california. i want to insure the coast line is never at risk but we shouldn't be in a rush to take a formal position on this. the bill is far from being heard and the whole thing could get resolved administratively. let's see where they are in a month so i'll vote no on this today but look forward seeing what happens in the coming weeks as the coastal commission works with senator wiener on a solution that satisfy our need to protect the coast. >> thank you supervisor engardio. supervisor melgar. >> thank you supervisor walton. so, i want to associate myself with a comment of my colleague supervisors engardio and i want to thank president peskin for bringing this resolution to the land use committee and for going above and beyond that to

bringing the parties together to negotiate senator wiener, the coastal commission folks and our planning staff and mayor office, because if that hadn't happened i think those negotiations would have perhaps not happened as fruitfully as they are now. i also think it is premature and not ready to take a stand on this until those negotiations come to fruition and yield whatever amendments they yield. i am not in the position of being in the senate right now so i trust the negotiations come out with something we can then support or oppose. but i am not in a place where i can do that now so i will be opposing this. thank you. >> thank you supervisor melgar. president peskin. >> thank you acting president walton. colleagues, let me not put too fine a point on this.

i was shocked that a former member of this body would introduce a san francisco specific bill in the california state legislature without having the decency to consult any one of the 11 of us, not former coastal commissioners, myself, not current alternate to the california coastal commission, supervisor mandelman, not consult anybody at the coastal commission. i'm happy that after this was introduced i was able to have adult conversation between director of planning and coastal commission. this entire piece of legislation is unnecessary. they both agree this could be done administratively. the precedent for the first time in 52 years of taking land out from under the jurisdiction of the california coastal commission under one of the most celebrated cherished pieces of california law that has been an example for the nation by wholesale taking out land in one county is a

horrible precedent whereby, the beginning of the end of the california coastal act that has maintained access for all californians to our pressure coast will be eroded. how dare scott wiener even go down that path, let us not blink, vote in favor of the resolution. if we do not take a hard stand now, it is the beginning of the end of the protection of our coast. >> thank you president peskin. supervisor chan. >> thank you and i-tough act to follow with that. i just want to say that as the supervisors representing the area that actually is impacted by this precisely this legislation carving out our coast on the west side including the richmond, outer richmond, i think not just i, but my neighbors and my community are just horrified by

ct that our own very own representative in the state legislature to decided that we will carve us out and remove the protection of the california coastal commission. i adamantly against that. i don't think there is any way you slice and dice with this bill that could actually excuse senator wiener and his intent of what he is trying to do in our coast and so for that i will not only strongly as a co sponsor of the legislation opposing this state bill, will continue to do everything that i can to make sure that we do not just protecting our coast in san francisco up and down the state of california, but also to really look at what has been happening to us with other bills that the senator wiener have put forward and passed by our legislature that really continues to single san

francisco out for whatever reason as our own representative cannot be protecting san francisco best interest. thank you. >> thank you supervisor chan. supervisor stefani. >> thank you president peskin. yeah, i just are want to say there is passion on both sides of the issue and i have great respect for both. president peskin and senator wiener and feel lucky to call them both colleagues and friends. i very happy that president peskin included a provision in the first resolve clause that makes it clear the city opposes the bill unless amended. very hopeful i remain hopeful senator wiener and coastal commission can continue conversation to implement compromise, a solution i believe will eliminate the need to use this broad brush that is in the current legislation and i will be supporting the second version of the resolution in hope a better bill will be constructed in the near future. thank you.

>> supervisor ronan. >> thank you. i want to thank you president peskin for putting this forward. i couldn't agree more with everything you said. it doesn't get more beautiful then the california coastline and therefore does not get more enticing for developers to buy up land and keep the rest of us out of the beach and the coast, and i couldn't be more grateful to the forethought of legislators that came before us who created the california coastal act and we need to do everything we can to preserve it. thank you. i'm proud to be voting yes on this today. >> thank you supervisor ronan. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you president peskin. good and reasonable people can disagree about legislation. i very much like and respect the senator on all sorts of issues and topics, but i do

disagree with him on this. i think the california coastal act is one of the great policy successes legislative achievement s and preservation of our coast is one of the major policy accomplishments of the 20 century in which i think californians can and should be proud and i am worried about the precedent of legislators from different jurisdictions beginning to exempt from pieces of the act. i don't think it is a great precedent to set and so thank you president peskin for this resolution, which i am cosponsoring and will be supporting. >> thank you supervisor mandelman and thank you to all the cosponsors. madam clerk, roll call, please. >> on item 25, ronan, aye. safai, aye. stefani, aye. walton, aye. chan, aye.

dorsey, no. engardio, no. mandelman, aye. melgar, no. peskin, aye. preston, aye. there are 8 ayes and 3 noes with supervisors dorsey, engardio, and melgar voting no. >> the resolution is adopted. why don't we go to our 2:30 special order commendations starting with supervisor preston. >> thank you president peskin and colleagues, in this first meeting during black history month, i have the honor and privilege to recognize tiffany jackson. [applause]

and tiffany, feel free to make your way up while i say a few words about you. tiffany is a tireless advocate for unhoused san franciscans who have served the community at hospitality house for more then a decade. welcome tiffany. tiffany is a proud native san franciscans born and raised in the fillmore. she attended galileo high school and her first job was at the african american culture society during her high school years working for the names project aids memorial quilt. from her earliest days tiffany is advocate for those in need. at hospitality house, she worked first as a on-call worker, later as peer staff and case manager, and for the past 5 years manager of the hospitality house employment program. because of-

[applause] because of tiffany's efforts the program is a model for the city and the hospitality house neighborhood job center is highly regarded as one of san francisco's signature workforce development partners. for the past three plus years, tiffany has convened and facilitated the homeless workforce collaborative cofounded by hospitality house to engage a network of more then a dozen community based workforce providers who use their collective power to advocate for more resources and increased options for unhoused and are other vulnerable job seekers across the city of san francisco. tiffany's work as a recognized leader in the city workforce field resulted in her appointment last year to the city wide committee on workforce alignment. she brings her on the ground

expertise and passion for justice to insure that whether during times of prosperity or times of adversity, the city of saint francis leaves no one behind. tiffany's own experience as a african american woman fighting against oppression and gender based violence, have fueled her constant drive to speak up to stand up and to push back whenever and wherever needed to help those marginalized and in need. her first hand experience with racism and homelessness and her work directly with survivors of domestic abuse have deepened tiffany's empathy and compassion and motivated tiffany to speak up for and empower those who need help finding their own voice and accessing help. it is with great pleasure and appreciation that we recognize

tiffany jackson during black history month. tiffany is a advocate courageous voice and represents the best what we can be can for each other and our community. tiffany, we are grateful for everything you do, everything you have done for so many years here in the city and county in san francisco and i couldn't be happier to honor you today and turn the mic over to you. thank you for everything you do. [applause] >> thank you so much supersurpriser preston. i appreciate the introduction. it was amazing. really. i want that afterwards. [laughter] again, thank you. i am deeply honored as we celebrate black history month an occasion that holds profound

significance for our community and nation. i like to express heartfelt gratitude to the board of supervisors for the recognition. not resigning. being a part of this ceremony is not just a personal achievement, but also a testament to the depth and vibrancy of the black culture. our community is a source of inspiration filled with innovators, educators and natural leaders who shaped the course of history. each story is a chapter and narrative of resilience, triump and relentless pursuit of justice. black history month captures the struggles and successes that we as a community have endered and achieved. it serves as a reminder of the remarkable individuals who paved the way for change, opening doors for future generations. today, i stand here not just as

a individual, but as a representative of the legacy of strength, perseverance and accomplishment. once again, thank you to the board of supervisors for this acknowledgment. let us use this moment not only to celebrate the achievements of the past, but also to inspire and uplift one another as we forge ahead in the future of boundless possibilities. thank you. [applause] >> our second special order commendation will be given by supervisor hillary ronan.

supervisor ronan. >> thank you colleagues. if i can ask alma, crystal, olga and [indiscernible] the representative from [indiscernible] to come up to the mic. thank you for being here. colleagues, last week the mayor spoke to this body about the early successes in the mission to address the problems of fencing operations and selling of stolen goods on the street. unfortunately because of the necessity of the vending ban on mission street, many aspiring entrepreneurs, newcomers and people just trying to survive in san francisco were caught up. as we weighed the need to keep order on the street against impact on innocent people we knew it was important to provide alternatives and resources to our permanent

legitimate vendors. in the months and weeks leading up to the implementation of the vending ban, we planned how to support our legitimate vendors. we knew any resource package we created to lift upveneders we need to help them continue selling their goods and ert supporting their families. that is when alma-[calling out names] jumped in. and then with the organization clecha fonded by small business commissioner william ortiz cartagena, stepped up as always to serve our neighborhood. when the call went out to community partners for ideas, clecha helped to conceive and plan and organize [indiscernible] spanish for indoor flea market. alternative place for permanent vendors to continue to do

business. this group found a storefront negotiated a lease, got permits and staffed the market within a matter of weeks. it was extraordinary. going from learning there was a need to establishing a fully functional market place would have been a impressive feat under any circumstances, however the speed professionalism and deep care the team set up was truly truly exceptional. today i am proud to present commendation to three special individuals who helped and embody the spirit of love for their community and the whit and guile to get it done when needed most on a holiday weekend missing out on the holiday with their family and instead painting and getting a storefront ready, i want to congratulate you. you are truly the best of san francisco and your heart and

your passion and your hard work for this community is something to feel so so proud about. thank you so much. if you want to say a few words. [applause] >> thank you supervisors ronan. on behalf of myself and colleagues, it was a holiday weekend, however we knew the importance of this ban and we understood the needs of the vendors being effected, so for us the holiday didn't matter. what mattered is making sure we have this up and running in a matter of days and that we had this ready to go because the necessity is great. again, thank you for trusting us and it has been a pleasure to help out. [applause]

>> our next special order commendation will be delivered by district 10 supervisors, shamann walton. supervise r walton. [applause] >> thank you so much president peskin. colleagues, today we have the privilege to honor lynne westry. [applause] nothing exemplifies the importance of black history like highlighting the black women who have improved the lives of so many. lynne is a distinguished survivor and advocate in san francisco with over 2 decades of experience, spearheading the san francisco department of public health, efforts to

support families of victims of homicides. she worked to amplify the voices of victims, participated in numerous city wide and state wide initiatives, including listening sessions with sfpd, survivor conference at the state capital and local community organizing. lynne advocacy began through the loss of her eldest child. she transformed this tragedy to meaningful action propelling to develop the courage to going beyond being a grieving mother. lynne is dedicated advocate and leader improving mental health service. through her work lynne positively impacted hundreds of lives in san francisco during their most vulnerable moments. she is a well respected and beloved member of community, regarded by many as family.

lynne's leadership and advocacy earned her numerous accolades, including the women making history award in 2005, a jefferson award and recognition by the san francisco department of public health as a mental health hero and outstanding advocate. lynne's legacy will forever be ingrained in san francisco as she spearheaded the establishment of survivors of homicide victims awareness month. lobbied the board of supervisors and health comeition for their support and awareness month launched on the steps of city hall. lynn's unwavering commitment to helping others is evident in all she does day in and day out. the measure of her success is difficult to quantify, but unmistakable when witnessed first hand. on a more personal note, she

has been a mentor and has been someone who works to hold all of us accountable and will hold your feet to the fire. watching her work with families and community that have lost loved ones is something that makes me proud to represent her as a district 10 resident. lynne has personally made sure that many families receive all the supportive services needed when tragedy hits. i can call her any time to ask her to connect with someone who needs support and guidance during their most vulnerable moments. lynne, we and as you can see so many community want to personally thank and celebrate you today. this is a proud moment for me to be able to honor and acknowledge you in this chamber. thank you for all of your service. [applause]

>> i want to thank supervisor walton. i always call him my supervisor. it is very personal and i would like to thank the entire board and god, all my community. oh, god. all my community i didn't expect to be here to surprise me today. my daughter, my granddaughter, god daughter, my colleague over here. i'm so overwhelmed today but so honored to receive the recognition today with it being black history month as a proud black woman i walk in that shoe with pride and i so thankful that it was changed because i think it was supposed to happen a month ago, so i think it all worked out for its good and i often think about my ancestors,

particularly my mother. growing up in bayview having 10 kids as if that wasn't enough rfx becoming a foster mother, going to berkeley and state and graduated and becoming a social worker, working with the san francisco redevelopment making sure folks had housing. seeing those strong women as such as a young age going to work fighting, standing and fighting for the rights of blacks in san francisco, particularly bayview hunters point and fill nor fillmore and i think i got all the resiliency at the time and not realizing what was happening in that moment and it brings me to this point in my life today. as i think about this passage i once read when going through losing my daughter at 18 and not having understanding how and why could i lose my child at 18 and this one passage

read, god doesn't change your circumstances recollect he changes you in that circumstance. that is when my healing begun and looking at after losing so many community folk in my community working for the department of public health none the less in those service being offered for my community and my community is struggling and hurting and hurting more and more without any real services, so without having a clue to begin that fight, didn't know what door to go to, didn't know who to speak to, but i was determined we were going to be a city that makes a difference and today i stand here very proudly saying that san francisco, we serve so many families, so many victims, not just homicides, but victims in general. those suffering from mental health issues and suicide, you name it and we respond.

we are 24/7 unit and very proud to say that we are here representing the full san francisco, not just my community, bayview hunters point, but the whole city of san francisco, and as i take my seat, i just want to say that as a department of public health crisis service, i am hoping that this board would really look into-i had conversations with shamann, i think with the mayor and different ones, probably anybody that gives me a ear that i would like to see department of public health crisis service recognize as a first responder and if nothing else, i ask that board, if you really appreciate the work that we do, that we should be recognized, right markey as first responders and get that in writing, because again, we are responding not to just homicide but suicide, mental health, you name it, we are

responding. with that being said, again, thank you. [applause] >> madam clerk, why don't we go to general public comment for a few minutes and then our 3 p.m. special order. excuse me, roll call for introductions. how did i skip right over that? >> thank you mr. president. supervisor ronan first up to introduce new business. >> thank you. first, today i want to present a in memoriam on behalf of

supervisor melgar and myself. we asked to adjourn today's meeting in honor of oscar fernando grande. a living father-soul transitioned on january 20, 2024 of age 88 in san francisco california. he was born to theresa grande and fernando luna on june 4, 13 35 in santa ana elsaevl dor. faced with economic earn certainty at a young age dropped out of school and started working caring sachs of coffee for the alvarez coffee empire. orphaned at the age of 13 he began driving and became .

oscar married the love of his life emma in 1959 united their blended family that consist of oscar, jr., clarabell, maria and carlos. their youngest oscar wasborn years later in san francisco. oscar managed to bring over his family of 5 to the u.s. to embark on a new life of economic educational and cultural opportunities. soon after arriving he worked at different jobs that included dish washing at mark hopkins hotel and landed a local 87 handyman job at the san francisco newspaper agency which ran the san francisco chronicle and examiner retiring after 34 years of service. together with his wife emma a union garment working at levi, they brought their first home in the excelsior mission neighborhood within 5 years of arriving in the united states. in his older years after the death of his wife emma, oscar

appreciated the loving support of family friends and community. he enjoyed road trips to half moon bay and tahoe, visits from grandchildren [indiscernible] he loved to entertain, weekly and wine dinners common thing at his home. oscar spent the last week of his long and love filled life at kaiser hospice in south san francisco surrounded by loved ones and where the nurses called him papito. i'm moved by the way that oscar lead his life with love, with grit and resolve with time and nature community and costcoand with his beloved always by his side. i wish his family and especially his son oscar and daughter in law and children great comfort in this difficult time. losing a father is deeply painful but i hope today's tribute helps honor the live and memory of oscar fernando

grande. rest ibpower. i want to give a update on the mtc i serve as a outside board. last month the mtc approved a initial framework for authorizing legislation being developed with senator wiener for potential 2026 transportation revenue measure. as proposed the authorizing legislation approve a menu of revenue options mtc could put on the ballot and high level expenditure plan categories with much details developed later. it also assigns mtc the role as regional network manager and assigns with responsibility around improving the connectivity and effectiveness of the bay area transit system. there wasn't agreement among commissioners on it best revenue source or eligible expenditures and in particular, whether roadway projects should be eligible. the san francisco mtc commissioners including my

itself prioritize our transit system not enlargeening highway. mta heard a update on the transit transportation action plan and approved the charter for the regional network management council or rnmc. rnmc is the new 11 member body at mtc and staff established represent interest of stakeholders and provide input on regional policy as the transportation transformation plan continue to be implemented. the last major update from mtc is around the housing incentive pool or hip program with 5 years of housing data collected, san francisco is in line to receive around $36 million in incentive funding from the hip program which rewards jurisdictions for producing affordable housing near transit. the mayor office and transportation authority will

be prioritizing projects to receive funding. the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor ronan. supervisor safai. submit. thank you. supervisor stefani. >> thank you madam clerk. colleagues, today i introduce a resolution condemning antiabortion harassment [indiscernible] just two weeks ago thousands of people took to our street protest the right to reproductive healthcare we are guaranteed in california. while the first amendment may guarantee the right to free speech you cannot harass, intimitate. since the decision, california proudly lead the fight to protect and expand access to abortion and reproductive care for all. at the same time extremist ramped up advocacy in states that are protective of abortion rights like our own. according to data collected in

2022, the national abortion federation reported prochoice states saw 29 percent increase in assault and battery, 100 percent increase in burglaries and 913 percent increase in stalking between 2021 and 2022. the national abortion foun daishz security director shared the threat of violence against abortion providers remain on the rise and extremely concerning. in addition to increase in major incidents extremist are becoming more organized for example seeing target clinics on days when they know they have more patients, less staffed or have less security. on february 14, antiabortion activist associated with the 40 days for life will commence vigils across the globe. in their own words, these vigil involve a 40 day non stop round the clock prayer vigil outside a planned parenthood center or abortion facility in your

community. these self-activist identify northern california as a loition ication. while these rights have every right to protest. [indiscernible] events like 40 days for life insight opportunities for extremist to harass intimidate and threaten bodily harm. it is pour mount we reaffirm the city county of san francisco has and will continue to be a champion of reproductive freedom and justice and that we will continue to stand in solidarity with healthcare providers and patients who have the right to provide and seek care without fear. this resolution seeks to reaffirm our commitment to keeping healthcare providers and patients safe and urges law enforcement agencies to enforce article 43 to the fullest extent of the law possible. finally, i am introducing two letters of inquiry to the school district as a follow-up to last week's jointhering with the civic engagement and education committee of the youth commission along with supervisors dorsey and engardio.

asking the san francisco unified school district to report on the current status of the $10 million from the 2016 bond that the board of education reallocated in 2021 to address site security. in addition, i am asking superintendent wayne for update on progress for training middle and high school campus on the sandy hook promise, say something anonymous reporting system. these issues remain top priority for our youth as well as my office and look forward hearing from the district to understand the progress made and continued efforts to enhance security measures within sfusd. the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor stefani. >> why don't we go to our 3 p.m. special order? please call 21-24 together. >> item 21 is public hearing of persons in the determination of exemption from environmental review under ceqa issued as

general plan by planning department. october 23, 2023 for the project at 2395 sacramento street to allow rehab of a existing 4 and a half story medical library building at 2395 sacramento street and develop adjacent vacant lot to construct 7 story over basement residential unit with 26 below grade park ing spaces and 31 bike parking spaces to authorize exemption from development standards under the state density bonus program. item 22 is motion to affirm the department determination that the sacramento street project is exempt from furkter environmental review. item 23 condition al reverse the determination subject to findings and is direct the preparation of findsings to reverse the department

determination. >> thank you madam clerk. colleagues, we have before us a hearing on the appeal of determination of exemption for environmental review under the california environmental quality act issued as a general plan evaluation for the proposed project at 2395 sacramento street. after the hearing has been held and close the board will vote whether to affirm or conditionally reverse the determination unless there are any opening comments from supervisors, we'll proceed as follows, which is our normal protocol up to 10 minutes for presentation by the appellate or their representative, fallowed by speakers public speakers on behalf of the appellate not to exceed 2 minutes per speaker, then up to 10 minutes for presentation from the planning department, the issuer of the determination

of exemption, and then 2 minutes per speaker in opposition to appeal and finally, a up to 3 minute rebuttal for by the appellate or their representatives. if no objection we'll proceed in normal fashion and open the public hearing. mr. drury, we will start your 10 minute clock as soon as you begin speaking. >> my name is richard durey and representing jonathan clark the appellate. this project involve repurposes of the lane medical library which is historic resource san francisco 115 picture. very significant building. we have architectural historian. i'll talk about the legal issues. the city and developer two years ago hired a consultant jones and stokes to prepare eir because projets that impact

historic resources are not exempt from ceqa so they were preparing a environmental impact report. about a year ago they did drut maic change of course and decided to try to exempt the project entirely from all ceqa review using exemption never to my knowledge been used in the city. called 15183. very little known provision and it says if you already have done ceqa review, you don't have to do it again. fine, that makes sense, but here the prior ceqa review the city is pointing to is the environmental impact report that was done for the housing element for the general plan for the entire city of san francisco. that's what is called a program eir. it analyzes a very high level impact of adding 50 thousand people through the city through up zoning, fine, but it specifically says, this is

programmatic eri and doesn't analyze projects and states when projects are proposed, we will do further ceqa review, but now we have a project that impacts a very significant historic resource, the lane medical library, a landmark and the city is saying we dont have to do ceqa review because we did it for the housing element. this proves way too much, because if this were allowed to proceed, no project, no residential project certainly will ever need to do ceqa review in the city again and that's just not right. under ceqa there are two eir, programmatic and project, analyze projects, a building, a oil refinery. there are different things and a body of case law that says these are different things and the programmatic eir cannot be used for project level analysis but that is what the city is

trying to do. we know from the e-mails we received other developers are planner to do the same thing if this developer gets away with it in this case and that would be tragic across the city. that is why this presents a city wide problem, not just district 2 problem. 151 doesn't support the city arguments. under 15183, the project has to be consistent with density analyzed in the prior ceqa document. the housing element ceqa document assumed the maximum density in this area would be 19 units and 40 feet in height. this project allows two towers 80 feet in height and density of 24 units. i want to put a footnote, of the 24 units, 3 are nominally affordable units, affordable to family of 4 making $110 thousand. this isn't low income housing.

the other 21 units are full market rate housing. so, since this project is not consistent with the density in the housing element, 15183 doesn't apply at all. also 15183 says ceqa review is necessary to analyze peculiar impact to the project. what could be more peculiar then impact to unique historic landmark as we have here? that pops it out of 15183. finally excludes off-site impact and we have expert analysis that shows this-the city own analysis shows significant off-site impact of vibration to other historic resources as close as 5 feet away. noise impacts. air quality impacts. wind impacts. our expert consultant calculated that the construction emissions because there is a preschool very close, just a few feet away, would be create cancer risk of 400 in a million.

i have been doing this a long time, i have never seen a number that high. the significant threshold is 10. this is 400. because again, young people have a much higher-multiply the cancer by 10 for young people. but very significant. these are impacts that ought to be analyzed under ceqa. my client is not saying don't build housing here, he is fine with housing here, but ceqa review should be required to make sure the impacts to the historic resource are mitigated properly, that the impacts to air quality, noise vibration are mitigating properly and we think there are things can done, the experts suggested numerous mitigation measures the city hasn't implemented because they skirted environmental review. the city should do what it was planning to do 2 years ago a eir or ceqa review to protect

this significant historic resource and the health of the surrounding community and i will turn the stage over to bridget, architectural historian. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is bridget maily, i have 30 years of experience in historic preservation. my qualifications are in your board packet. the lane medical library of stanford university built in 1912 as theest lapiece of a large medical educational complex. the library by architect albert pieces was designed with the adjacent domed temple israel also his project to complement each other. this photograph from the 1920's and detail of the architect drawings were easily located in the stanford digital archives yet not used in the ceqa analysis. here is a current view which illustrate how minimal alterations occurred to this block over time.

the project sponsor tall bland addition to the library will not only impact the library, they will forever change the visual and historic relationship with the temple sheriff israel. the medical library is equally in fact at the interior. the planning depirement required the project sponsor evaluate the historic interior feature of the public spaces and determined they were significant and contributing. yet the analysis put forward of potential impact s using the tool of the secretary standards never mentioned the impact to the interior features including the very significant arthur matthews murals site specific appropriately medically themed and in the main reading room. further, the analysis did not include a mention how the project would or would not impact these murals. the planning department secretary of interior standards analysis didn't mention the murals would be removed. historic resource under ceqa is the entire resource, the entire

building and this particular project does have publicly accessible interiors. the planning department determined that these were publicly accessible and ignored the features and spaces. further when the historic preservation commission and planning commission approved this project the staff reports explained the housing element eir was to be used but verbal presentation never once mentioned using this tool and i feel this was a grave disservice to the public. in my professional opinion the proposed project is out of scale and character with the architect complementary library and temple in the same block both detailed thmpt verticality, the bland materials, height and unarticulated roof line of the proposed project impact both buildings and historic relationship. the dramatic interior intervention and removal with no plan for disposition of the library murals also represent a impact.

the proposed project as approved does not mitigate impact to less then significant level and does not meet the secretary standards. eight, count them, eight other highly qualified historic preservation professionals and historians submitted letters asking for more thorough environmental review. i like to ask you to think about the historic buildings in all our districts. not just district 2. and what using this programmatic eir to swat away site specific impact analysis under ceqa will do to other landmarks in all our districts. i'll let jonathan say a few words. thank you. >> good afternoon. is there a timer? hi. i'm jonathan. it is a beautiful space. first time i have been here. thank you for having me.

i represent 17 residents located within 300 feet of this project including myself and past 7 days we collected 72 signatures in support of this appeal. the project exzoning limits from 8 [indiscernible] 25 normal setback with zero proposed project. when project exceeds the originally allowed under san francisco general plan there will be outside environmental impacts that must be considered and feel this is a statute that identify and attempts to mitigate these impacts where feasible. we have submitted a list of impacts prepared by outside expert- >> sorry, your 10 minutes has come up. >> thank you. i just like to ask your vote in support of this project. thank you. >> thank you.

seeing no names on the roster for questions from members of the board of supervisors, i will open public comment specifically for those who like to speak in support of the appeal, which means in opposition to the project so to speak. madam clerk, please call the first speaker. >> please come up to the podium. welcome. >> you against this project. >> this is on the appeal. this isn't just general public comment. >> i know. about this project, dont destroy anymore. you destroyed enough. you dont touch architecture or put ugly stuff next to it. don't do this project. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon members of the board of supervisors. my name is catherine petren

speaking on behalf of san francisco heritage and woody lubounty. we support the appeal that is before you this afternoon. it is unclear to us that the proposed project at 2395 sacramento street qualifies for streamlined environmental review under ceqa. heritage most definitely does not object to infill for affordable housing projects that are sensitive to context and historic resources, but we are concerned that in haste to accommodate a proposed state density bonus project, the city has not conducted adequate ceqa review on city landmark 115, the lane medical library. heritage believes ceqa streamlining dependent on the 2022 housing element eir should not be the practice over specific project specific review, especially where known historic resources and landmarks are involved.

heritage is seeking clarification about use of the housing element eir for individual projects going forward with new state housing production laws in effect it is more important then ever for the city to clarify how it will conduct ceqa evaluations and determinations. heritage request this board grant the appeal and return the project to planning for full environmental review. thank you. >> thank you next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm stan hayes, president of the telegraph hill developers and on behalf of thc bord and 500 members we ask you to grant this appeal and require environmental review on the landmark building. this project is exempt from environmental review. effectively side-stepping project specific environmental analysis by simple and maybe

conveniently tearing off the housing element eir. planning determination if you uphold it may set a sweeping precedent opening the flood gates to exemptions for future such projects and risking ceqa review being similarly side-stepped for projects throughout the city. please don't let that happen. ceqa provides essential project specific decision making information to you, your commissioners, your staff and especially importantly to the general public. you must not lose that. the city cannot lose that. certainly not just for the sake of streamlining convenience. individual projects often have unique project specific effects which can only be addressed by project level environmental analysis. particularly those involving designated local landmark properties, or national register eligible resources. the housing element eir is a

programmatic eir and does not or intended-we urge you do not substitute the broad bresh housing element in need of project specific analysis. we strongly support and concur with the appeal and materials filed by attorney richard durey on behalf of the appellates. please grant this appeal, refer this project back for preparation of a more appropriate ceqa document. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm courtny. former member of historic preservation commission in san francisco. i promise first off i would let you know that robert churny professor emeritus of history at san francisco state

university submitted a letter and planned to be here to testify in support of the appeal and was not able to and he asked i convey his apologies. i'm here as well in support of the appeal. the health science library at 2395 sacramento is a designated landmark significant for design, architecture and role in san francisco history. as such, it merits thorough review to the character defining feature to determine if the project meets the secretary of interior standards. in this case, the character defining features of the publicly accessible interior have not been recognized and should have been for the purposes of ceqa. i am in favor of the appeal because the planning department reliance on the housingalment eir and general plan evaluation for ceqa clearance does not provide the evaluation

intendsed. resources are reused for myriad of purposes. what makes this significant is identified and eare spected. denying this appeal and allowing for the use of a housing element eir and general plan evaluation for individual ceqa review will lead the way for tremendous damage and loss of such resources in our city. i urge you to grant the appeal. thank you. >> good afternoon president peskin and members of the board. i'm susan, and here as a resident of the city. i also happen to be an attorney who practiced ceqa issues for over 40 years now. i have to admit and spoken before this board before as a attorney. i support the appeal and would like to point out that this guideline we are talking about

derives authority from the public resources code 21083.3 which clearly says that the consistency with the general plan element does not preclude ceqa analysis if there are any significant impacts that were not studied, and as pointed out by mr. drury, a housing element doesn't look at every parcel and analyze historic resources so it is completely inappropriate to be used in this way. this is a very slippery slope if the board would allow this to be efficient, this kind of treatment of ceqa based on housing element, you would be just overloaded with improper applications for exemption and you would look at these issues all the time. in ceqa practice, a project

could be approved has to be consistent with the general plan. that is step 1. step 2 is compliance with ceqa. they are separate. so the plan itself needs to comply with ceqa, but projects that go forward must also receive individual ceqa analysis when appropriate as here. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon president peskin and members of the board. [indiscernible] san francisco land use coalition. we strongly urge you to take the appeal and send the project back to the planning department for review on the ceqa basis of impact on the environment that this project is going to have on a historic resource. in my neighborhood, i have witnessed at least more then once couple times that privately held properties that

actually happen to be a historic resource were blocked despite what the guidelines are for preservation of the resources from the public view, and in this case, we are not dealing with a private property, we are dealing with a public property that is a public amenity. that's why i really urge you to send this back to the planning department for an environmental impact analysis and given the fact the planning department is so willy-nilly in terms of its own interpretation that is not even can be upheld by law, i think this will send a strong message to them that they cannot be a rogue department and just interpret things as they please.

clearly this project needed to be evaluated for impact on historic resource which is a public amenity and this is the right thing to do, send it back. do the right thing please. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> mark riser, resident of san francisco. at this point i'm unlikely to add anything new. i apologize for that but allow me to join the voices urging you to grant this appeal. the environmental determination short circuited a appropriate review process by failing to evaluate the existing landmark building. it is character definer features and developed no apparent provisions to insure appropriate treatment of the rare and potential fragile collusive standstill which covers the outside of the building. established by inadequate evaluation is highly important

article 10 landmark is deeply concerning. individual landmark status under article 10 of the planning code as you know is the most significant designation san francisco can bestow on a historically important structure. designation is intended to afford the highest level of consideration. the existing landmark at 2395 sacramento is significant by every measure. what you are being asked here is not to join in emotional response to favored buildings, it is asked to uphold a set of rules and procedures that have been developed to balance competing interest that did not occur here. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is richard brandy a architectural historian and engaged to do the historic resource evaluation on the interior of the building, because the planning department

determined that the building interior spaces were open to the public and not been evaluated before, so i have a very specific point i like to make in the time i have. the interior is open to the public and therefore subject to all the protections and review we would give any historic resource. the artist matthews is acknowledged as designer of merit, therefore risen to the appropriate level and the murals on the inside are historic resources, so i want to draw your attention to the fact the mitigation plan states that the murals which are going to be salvaged and disposed of should be donated to a non profit or cultural association or a private entity. now, in the mitigation plan there is no conditions or safeguards to insure the murals end up in a safe or appropriate place and we know from other murals this is a recipe for

disaster, so i very briefly want to urge you to in your deliberations require that at minimum the mitigation plan be changed to reflect the following 4 points. the applicant should be required to find a qualified cultural association or private entity. who ever takes it has to take all three because otherwise it ruins the historical significance of the murals. ucsf went through this process and there is a lot of recommendations in your packet as to what i recommend you follow that. they have already gone through this. and crucially, if no takers that want to take these murals or buy them or take them for free, that-- >> speaker time concluded. happy to take your talking points. >> i think we understand the

just of your comments. next speaker, please. >> if the display could be turned on. [indiscernible] the historacy. 2017 construction of the temple behind such property that is of the conversation today. that was of that moment. the big game. thank you. >> did you want to show draw the attention of the camera to the projector? >> if isn't turned on, thank you. it is completely fine. i wish not to tamper. and protect the historacy of the san francisco historical city, but thank you. i'm not a criminal. thank you.

>> hello. i am a resident of dist rth 2 and stand here to voice my concern about the project. this development raises significant concern about its impact on historical integrity, environmental health, and unique character of our neighborhood. one of the issues is about vibration from the construction work. the details from the project review show the shaking can be strong. they are talking about vibration as high as 1 inch per second. that is lot when you consider all buildings can only handle up to 0.25 to 0.30 inch per second without getting damaged. this means the shaking from construction could be more then

3 times what all buildings can safely take without possibly getting cracked or damaged. this is big deal because it means dollar there is real risk of damage. we need to make sure to take proper steps to protect our neighborhood heritage and homes. i urge the board to please take consideration and look at the ceqa consideration. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> the board of supervisors, [indiscernible] reaching out with grave concerns over the proposed development at 2395 sacramento and the potential to

dangerously increase wind speed in our area. my concern are not just personal but extend to the community. given proximity of healthcare facilities, including the healthcare facility in front of my home and a hospital across the street. the stakes are incredibly my. my recent experience forcefully knocked down by wind during a storm two days ago illustrate the danger of the project that the project poses. as a young fit individual if can can be this over-powered by the wind how can those with health conditions fend for themselves? the thoughts facing a hazard is deeply troubling and also unacceptable. this is a call to action for us to uphold or duty of care to our residents, particularly the most sus ceptable to harm.

i implore to mandate ceqa review focus on the wind. our responsibility is insure safety and accessibility for everyone especially those relying on medical facilities are not compromisedism . thank you for your attention. your decision can safeguard the wellbeing of our community and [indiscernible] >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> honorable board members, i am here today to address the issue of noise disturbance caused by the construction project at 2395 sacramento. particularly concerning the impact on my ability to prepare effectly for my medical license exam. maintaining focus is paramount.

the construction noise that will go on through the whole day and nights pose significant threat to my future and potentially jeopardize my future. i urge the board of supervisors to prioratize a ceqa review of the proposed project to insure public safety and mitigate the adverse effect of noise pollution on the residents like myself. this review should consider not only impact of construction noise but also the long-term consequences and also i want to point out this, this is a beautiful room in beautiful city hall, a historical building built in 1916, the same time the library was built, 1912, a little older. please protect it and dont let it parish. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please.

>> hi. i took this photo right outside our front door, and that tree is smack-dab in front of the subject property. it was one of over 900 that fell in san francisco last february. i think our wind problem itself justifies further ceqa review. interestingly, the wind study relied on to green light the project said we are okay. curiously it analyzed old data from miles away. how old? from the 1840's. why especially in the time of climate change would we not use contemporary data from the project site itself is a

mystery to me. now, our own history, more recent then 1940 offers a cautionary tale. in 1957, clarisa mcmahon, the second woman supervisor insisted we solve the wind problem for the baseball stadium they were building at candle stick point. nothing was done. candle stick park opened. the first pitch thrown out by vise president richard millhouse nixon declared it the finest ball park in america. two years later in 1962, a wind study concluded that they could have substantially avoided the wind problem by building it a hundred yards away. let's avoid another mistake like that. let's do our homework and look before we leap. please grant the appeal. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon board of supervisors. i support the appeal. i'm [indiscernible] live across the street. in district 2. we lived there 16 years. larry is my husband. we are very much in favor of repurposing the existing library but we are very very very concerned that a complete ceqa study has not been done. there are two new massive structures that are being railroaded forward without the complete ceqa study. this lack of study is depriving everyone with a meaningful environmental biological and wind and historical resource studies. the two structures are significantly higher then historical san francisco standards and with the climate change worsening, this seems to be the wrong time and place for the city to be easing these

environmental planning standards. ceqa as state law passed in 1970 was put in place for a good reason. it was intended to assess the environmental impact and provide guidelines to protect the california ecosystem of projects before they are started. it is prudent look before you leap policy. the library project is a huge leap. it is first new construction on our block in a hundred years. it sits between a national historical building the temple and san francisco landmark the library. the current plan destroys the garden next to the library and replaces with a parking garage and 70 foot structure. the garden could play a critical role mitigated wind on the street which we have significant of and we won't know the ramification of removing the garden without that complete ceqa study.

the magnitude of the library project cannot be under hrf stated. it is hard to imagine a more appropriate project to fully need a ceqa study. in the 16 years in our home-- >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is [indiscernible] a neighbor and in district 2. today i want to talk about the noisy [indiscernible] change in wind and air quality concern. [indiscernible] look out for our community. the wind condition for construction exhibit notable changes. [indiscernible] that is

dangerous and we ask for a complete ceqa review for the construction project. i want to feel i'm safe in san francisco. i want to feel that you my representatives will be able to make decision that benefit my neighborhood and [indiscernible] thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> thank you. good afternoon. my name is [indiscernible] i live in district 2 and someone who has been recognized globally as a top community building and building 155 communities all around the world and my role as a consultant for united nations

on community initiative my commitment to fostering inclusive and sustainable communities. this dedication brings me before you today to discuss the crucial topic of development of our beloved city. san francisco heritage and values lie at the core of what makes our city truly special. the current development proposal challenge to carefully consider the long-term impact on [indiscernible] and communities cultural and social fabric. threw my experience i witnessed first hand the significant benefit of involving communities in the decision making process. this insures that development projects not only benefit everyone but do no harm. it is inclusive approach [indiscernible] safeguard the essence of san francisco for future generations. as we deliberate on our city path forward, let's play

sustainability inclusivity and respect for our rich heritage at the for front of decisions. insure the legacy we leave behind feature generations will look back with pride and gratitude. thank you for giving me the platform to share my perspective. i think together we can [indiscernible] values of san francisco. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> catherine howard, dent of d4 in san francisco. i ask you to grant this appeal. as a landscape architect i worked with historic landscape and familiar with secretary of interior standards and various guidelines. these standards are clear and easy to understand so little concerned the planning department doesn't seem to understand them or be able to apply them carefully. of more importance, i'm stunned the city would try to exempt this project in particular

because of a programmatic eir following this reason we will lose ceqa reviews for too many housing projects. this is a wrong interpretation. this could also set a precedent for other kinds of projects, for example, what about the recreation and open space element, the rose? this report is created every few years by rec and park to outline goals and standsards for our parks. could the rose be used as a excuse to approve specific projects that are destructive to our parks and open space without a closer look at each project? this is a precedent that could be set. we need ceqa, we need ceqa to protect our city and i ask you to support this ceqa-this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. here to speak in favor of the

environmental review. as i had spoken to this board, at least 14 times and unfortunately sometimes bureachyeracy and red tape takes time to move, but this is a priority with climate change and wind. some of you in the room know what the issue is. i'm getting really frustrated telling you what the issues are and you are not doing what you should be doing. what the mayor did to the city is reprehensible. she placed every person in this city, including firefighters and police officers and not too long ago there were several incidents with firefighters and police officers injured, she placed them on digital surveill js. i have the evidence t. is a contract with hsa with trent signing and it is radian 6 technology from sales force based here and big funder of

the mayor london breed. that is the issue if you want to control climate change and wind, period. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. any other speakers after this individual, please line up to my left, your right. >> honorable supervisors, my name is [indiscernible] a concerned resident from district 2. would any of you sitting here today take a study from 70 years ago related to our environmental climate and apply it today? this is not a hypothetical scenario, this is what is happening with this project. the study that they proposed and submitted is outdated. it ignores the unique micro climate of san francisco and particularly the intense wind that happens in the pacific heights area and webster streets. so, what we have done is we have contacted a modern

quantitative wind analysis, including a third party competitional floud dynamic analysis and we presented results and the result are actually alarming. for anyone to sit here today and say a 25 percent increase in wind does not cause or present danger to pedestrians i don't know what-they will have to reevaluate their understanding how wind really can impact pedestrians. now, this is not just uncomfortable, it is hazard to public safety and also to property and that is recognized not by anybody other then national weather service. furthermore, we have done analysis regarding diesel emission and findings were showing that the particular

levels 40 times more then what ceqa accepts as limits. there is [indiscernible] here and there that need to be reviewed and the conversations should shift towards instead of getting rid of ceqa entirely, we understand we need more housing everyone agrees we need that, instead of getting rid of ceqa-- >> thank you for your comments. >> thank you. seeing no other speakers on behalf of the appellate, public comment on this segment of the hearing is closed. now we will have up to 10 minutes for representatives of the planning department. mrs. gibson. >> good afternoon. lisa gibson, environmental review officer. i'll make the first half of the presentation and focusing on broader ceqa issues and then

hand it over to rich to focus on historic resources. the department submitted 5 detailed memorandum responded to the appellate multiple briefs. one last was sent earlier today responding to yesterday's appellate brief concerning air quality. after thoroughly reviewing all appellate materials we maintain the general plan evaluation we prepared was properly issued based on substantial evidence. the appellate has not met the legal burden to prove otherwise. i like to address claims the department did not do any ceqa review for this project and that somehow we are doing something entirely new. let's be clear, both claims are utterly false. i'll explain. the general plan evaluation that we issued is a type of ceqa determination that follows the mandate of ceqa 21083.3 and guidelines 15183. subsection a which requires

project consistent established by general plan policy which a eir certify shall not require additional environmental review accept to examine whether there are peculiar effects. the board is familiar with this ceqa streamlining provision because the sitdy used it for all most 300 projects since 2009 for area plans that had eir throughout the city. next slide, please. these are shown on the left side of this slide areas where we have area plans not all are ones where we have done programmatic eir, but where we have-we use cpe we do it based on the provision of ceqa and just like here, we as we have done with this project, sacramento street, we used

those to streamline impacts identified on historic resources. what is different now is that we are using the same ceqa streamlining provision for housing project tearing off the housing element eir. we used the cpe for housing project but the housing element is addressing impact of housing development and so we are using the provisions of ceqa in the same way. i'll explain using the project that brings us here today to illustrate. next slide. using the robust analytical framework that for subsequent development we established in our housing element eir, we concluded conducted a thorough project level impact analysis of whether the 2395 sacramento street project would have impacts preculiar to the site or project or not previously analyzed as significant impact or new off-site or cumulative

impact are more severe based on new information. because the answer was no, we were able to issue a gpe. if the answer was yes, we would have prepared a focused mitigated neg deck or eir. how did we get to no? next slide. well, for one it goes back to the housing element eir. which this board adopted on january 31, 2022. when it did so the board made ceqa findings based on the housing element eir which disclosed about 35 significant environmental impacts that could occur from future housing development. the board adopted the statement overriding consideration acknowledging after application of 31 measures housing element result in significant jun avoidable impact in the areas shown in the slide. when we reviewed 2395 sacramento street we found the project would have significant

impact that could be mitigated and none of these was preculiar because they were similar to the impacts already disclosed. we came to that conclusion after conducting project level review that included over 150 pages of project level documentation including technical studies, evaluation response and determination. these included full historic resource analysis as my colleague rich will describe. next slide. with all that substantive evidence to support our gpe, it is entirely inaccurate to claim the department conducted no environmental review and we conducted project level review. say we hadn't used the housing element to streamline. say that wasn't a tool. we would have conducted analysis and based oen the information we have today we would have issued a mitigated negative declaration and identified the same significant environmental impact, applied the same mitigation measures

and we would have done the same studies. the negative declaration would necessitate a lengthier costler process. i do want to note that the housing element eir includes a measure at the bottom of the slide that include a alternative process to avoid impact recognizing there is a loss of alternative analysis and can talk more about that if there are questions. i also like to note objections by the appellate to streamlining provisions in state law are not grounds for appeal. opposition to streamlining is contrary to housing element action 8.5.9 which direct the city to develop a streamline process implementing the housing element eir for future housing projects and future planning code amendments which will be forthcoming.

it is noteworthy the housing element was not appealed and the department was very clear in the eir and text in the eir cite, provisions we are talking about to be utilized for future development and we did state at the certification hearing intention to streamline under this process. speaking of appeals the board upheld 7cpe on appeal. finally i want to acknowledge the historic preservation policy concerns that surfaced are important and do deserve the department attention. and there are more appropriate forums for that. that's all the time i have because i will turn it over to rich. >> thank you lisa. my portion of the presentation will focus on the project itself and the historic resource analysis as well as planning department's response

to the appeal. we can put the slides up. as remeaner the project including rehabitation of a city landmark 115 and new construction of two horizontal addition to east and souths. create 24 residential units which includes 3 on site inclusionary affordable housing units. the project required discretionary approval by planning commission and historic preservation both were unanimously approved and neither appealed. relative to the issues raised in the appeal, i want to focus on three points. the department did appropriately conduct a project level evaluation of impacts to the exterior, interior and setting of historic resource. the certificate of appropriateness is separate analysis conducted under ceqa and the department did consider the importance of the three reading room murals and the future treatment and we did identify appropriate mitigation measures in our gpe.

in addition just to acknowledge the national register nomination did not provide new additional information not already provided in our analysis or understanding of both the building and project. historic resource analysis is broken into two steps. one, identify the historic resource on the site and two, conduct evaluation of project impacts to that historic resource. as noted in the evaluation response, we did recognize a significant impact to the building interior and we also noted that this aspect of the project did not meet the secretary interior standards. we also identified appropriate mitigation measures to insure important interior features such as murals were appropriately treated. we found the project still retained the building eligibility for listing in the national register and as a city landmark with the incorporation of the mitigation. sacramento street is a city landmark 115 and as such work to the property did require approval by our hpc.

the hpc purview in their particular instance was only exterior features as dictated by the land mark designation report, hence why there is analysis in the case report and focus on the exterior while ceqa looked at exterior and intear of the building. as part of review under ceqa, our staff did review of important interior features and exterior features. our staff did consider the interior murals and we did identify mitigation in our analysis. this mitigation specifically calls for salvage and protection of these murals in the reading room by a qualified art conservator in consultation with tribal groups to gather input on future public interpretation. the hpc and planning commission adopted resolution on race and social equity and given the context of the murals it is important to frame the future retention in light of the city goals or creating a more equitable environment. in addition as part of the

housing element we did incorporate the minimaization mitigation measure which helped reduce the scope of work. i want to conclude my statement, the department ifinds a strong project that balance historic preservation and construction of new housingism the staff did analyze the historic resources present on the site and which does involve rehab of a prominent landmark and we are available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. are there any questions from members of the board of supervisors? seeing none-sorry. excuse me, supervisor stefani. >> thank you president peskin. thank you for that presentation and i just want to level set in terms of what we are being asked to consider here today. it is my understanding the appellates based their appeal on the premise that 2395 sacramento street is inherently

peculiar as it concerns ceqa provision 15183 arguing historic preservation projects are by nature peculiar. a lot is said about wind and vibration because we are looking whether the project could be categorized as peculiar means impacts were not contemplated in the housing element. that seems to be the crux of the issue. is that-just want to hear- >> through the chair. supervisor stefani, lisa gibson, environmental review officer. the question is, is there something special about historic resources that puts themane different category perhaps regarding peculiar impacts or i'll say that is how i'll address the question and if you can tell me if that gets what you are after.

under ceqa, definitely impact with historic resource is aim pact on the environment and ceqa does identify and provide guidance to what constitute a significant impact on historic resource and it is very well defined how you assess that. it is clearly the case that demolition of historic resource is a unavoidable significant impact and we also know that you can fully mitigate a impact to historic resource by insuring that you have a project that meets all the secretary standards of the stand ards. as far as they provision for ceqa streamlining we are utilizing, there are no specific provisions or

exclusions, exceptions. no specific guidance that pertains to treatment of historic resources as a impact that differentiates it from other impacts. there is no like exception the way for use of categorical exemption, so we look at and evaluate historic resources the same for every topic and we first then-we utilize the same methodology and significant thresholds. we look at-identify what is a resource. i think the is no dispute among the parties this is historic resource. we identify what are the character defining features. there differences how the hpc looked at it and how planning reviewed it under ceqa, but in total we did look at interior and exterior and then in terms of the peculiar review, which

is peculiar is peculiar word but what it means in this review is are there impacts of this project that is dissplar from those that we called out in the program eir that is the housing element. in that eir we looked thoroughly what would be the physical effect of ultimately the development of a lot of housing in san francisco. of course we did not know under what specific location or what specific projects would come to pass. that is beyond the task of a program eir, that is project level. at the program level we were able to anticipate the type of impacts that would occur and it was very foreseeable there could be impact on historic resources, including alteration or demolition. we called out that impact and identified all the suite of mitigation measures that would reduce those impacts and then

in the historic resources profession, these are very row routine measures. they are tailored to each individual resource which has its own character defining features and the sites on which they are located is very site specific so they are by nature unique each and every one, but they have measures themselves have a similar framework and those are the measures that we identified in the eir and they are similar to ones you see in most every environmental document with mitigation measure for historic resource. then we found when we did the project level review for this project that in deed there was a significant effect and that we looked at the measures in the housing element eir and found they when applied and tailored as intended to be, they would lessen the empact to below significant level. that then lead us to conclude

that isn't a pewculiar impact and so in that case, we were able to say that no further review is needed. i want to make it clear, that is environmental impact analysis, ceqa doing what intended to do which is disclose to the decision makers and the public the impacts of the project that is being considered for approval. two, to reduce harm to the environment to reduce when it feasible to do so. the project would do so. and then thirdly, ceqa has a established in this provision a value that is placed on streamlining and reducing unnecessary rep tisch astudy and that is a goal consistent with our city, which has said we want to reduce constraints to housing development and insure we have a government that is operating in a

efficient manner. that's just to show you how we find that that application is and that approach that we very mindfully and purposefully created this process that it is consistent with the larger set of values. >> thank you. i think the natural instinct is for people to think anything is peculiar if it wasn't studied before. that's helpful and i also would like to know what requirements for in place to insure extensive mitigation measures are taken with respect to project involving historic buildings here and what is the enforcement process? >> i like to ask rich answer this question, please. >> through the chair. so, we do have a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that was adopted as part of the gpe and as part of

staff review, when we look at building permits and or future work that involve construction we are doing a check against mitigation measures as well as conditions put on by our respective commissions. in this case, we have commissions from historic preservation commission that need to be fallowed through as well as from the planning commission and on basically all three ends our staff are insuring the project is consistent and compliant with said conditions. to bring up the murals in this instance we have a condition that requires the owner to salvage and protect the murals on site. it requires a qualified art conservator. as part of the work toward meeting the mitigation measure the project sponsor has to hire a art conservator to work on retention of the mural and conduct appropriate community outreach and we do not move forward while waiting oen the

mitigation measures and or other conditions to basically be met. >> thank you. i think this is my last question. so, the appellates are arguing that basically for mitigated neg dec to be issued to study the possible impact. they like that to be the instrument that analyzing this project. i would like to know, what are the differences or the substantive differences between general plan evaluation that studied environmental effects and a potential mitigative negative declaration and also, what additional level of study would be taken should a mitigative negative declaration be required in this regard? what else would be done if anything? >> lisa gibson, environmental review officer.

begins with a check list which is a set of questions that address the full suite of environmental topics and it is similar to-same set of questions we use when we prepared our environmental impact report for the housing element and therefore the same questions we look at for gpe, so essentially the same questions that are answered whether in mitigated neg dec or gpe. the difference is in the substantively there will be-because mitigated neg dec would be not tiering off the housing element eir, there is more explanation that is not referencing the housing element eir so probably a longer explanation so there will be repetition. we would be not ignoring the

analysis and data and information that is in the housing element, because that is a lot of up to date good information in there in the record, so we would probably be repeating a lot of that and then we would be identifying the same impacts that we have previously disclosed in the gpe identifying the same mitigation measures, the mitigation monitoring reporting program would look the same because that is the identification of the mitigation measures that apply to the project, and ultimately it would be that with the cover on it, that says, here is a preliminary document that is the city's preliminary determination of this project. not going to have significant effect with these mitigation measures applied. there is a process difference. we issue out for public review

and there is an appeal period and that can be appealed to the planning commission. i believe the san francisco only appeal pathway and then that could be appeal today the planning commission. if theen plaing commission were to uphold the appeal, when it is finalized and approval action were to have occurred in this case a cu, the neg dec would have been issued before the cu, then it could be appealed to the board of supervisors, so there are two appeals for the neg dec. substantively, the more paper in a explanation, but the same studies, the same impacts and same mitigation measures, but more cost to prepare that documentation and more time and certainly more time that would have been spent on the appeal-anticipate what i

anticipate have been two appeals. >> so, more process and not more review? >> not more review, no. not getting any additional information, because again, the t st. clear with all due respect to parties who commented, there are some misunderstandings. there is claims we didn't analyze the interior of the historic resource. we did. there are claims we didn't do environmental review, we did, so that-we have done the work and so we would package it into a mitigated neg dec and put out for public review. >> thank you. >> supervisor mandelman. >> thank you president peskin and supervisor stefani. got to i think much of what i was going to ask about, but i

just--for mitigated negative declaration or eir, mitigations would be recommended in the environment al document and those would be imposed through conditions when the planning commission approves the project. here, environmental impacts were analyzed. a lot had been analyzed in the eir for the housing element for the general plan. there was new analysis where that seemed appropriate because this particular project had not been analyzed and new mitigations were identified that were specific to this project. that doesn't trigger a mitigated negative declaration or eir because there are no new impacts is that right? getting a nod. the mitigations are imposed on the project through the approval and so thes

mitigations of the particular historic resource impacts identified go in through that approval process and that happens. that makes me feel more comfortable about this. one thing you said that made me feel less comfortable which you went through the 19 areas where we identified or you noted the 19 areas where there are significant and unavoidable impacts in the general plan identified in the general plan ore housing element eir. based what you have done on the project i don't think you were saying because there were significant unavoidable impact we get to approve projects consistent with that-if that is what you were doing i would get nervous because you what you

said here there are-for mitigations with the project you don't think there are significant unavoiding historic reimpact and done the analysis to conclude that so you are not saying you found significant unavoidable impact and have a get out of jail free, approve, approve. i don'ts think that is what you are telling us, but want to clarify that. >> this is a really good question and think important one and do think it is important to understand. first off, i think it is really important to clarify that the ceqa determination in this appeal hearing is not related to project approval. project approval is a separate matter. there is cu hearing and certificate of appropriateness and the project was approved and those decisions were appealable to this body because there was a cu and c of a. it was not and given the

concern about historic resources, that would have been a avenue if that was really of grave concern, so that the approval could have been appealed. here we are, there is concern about the environmental review and the impact as you noted is less significant with mitigation and there is no free pass, because we are applying mitigation measures and just to clarify with the summation you were saying earlier, they are not new mitigation, the same we identified in the housing element eir specifying the taylor to address the specific circumstances of the project in terms of the specific historic resource and character defining features, et cetera. the murals for example. so, this is-so, with this

process, there is not a free pass. it isn't a exemption or a no environmental review. we do the analysis because we are still obgated under ceqa under this process to do environmental review to identify significant impacts to see if the project has those effect because we need to identify the mitigation measures so that imperative of ceqa still applies and then, we must insure those mitigation measures get applied and implemented, which is of course where the rubber hits the road. we have to make sure they actually happen. then the disclosures that then we go back to the approvals that the decision maker s have this the information and disclose of impact to decide on balance with these impacts are they satisfied the environmental impacts have been addressed? ceqa has been complied with and then to move forward with approval. so, that's where the ceqa fits

and again this is not a situation with unavoidable significant impact and we can talk through that scenario. that is why i brought that up with the housing element where the housing element did identify sig cnts unavoidable impact regarding to adoption of the element itself and that is where there is need for over riding consideration to say is this still something we want to move forward with in light of these impacts. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor dorsey. >> thank you. can i ask planning about 15183? if i understand it right, it strikes me that the starkest

divergence in factual representations is that planning is either representing interpreting and using this in a wholely novel way, or this is something that is common in projects and just reading from the proponents or the project sponsor brief that this is-the housing element eir discuss the use of 15183 to streamline project level review. is it new or common? >> i can speak to san francisco's experience. it is certainly not new. as i said, we began in 2009 with the rincon hill area plan and began the process of using ceqa to streamline for projects in rincon hill area plan and

since then we had area plans adopted we've had programmatic eir and used it up to more recently central soma and the hub. we got a lot of experience with it and approved the process over time to make it that we believe more clearly disclosing impacts, effectively mitigating and improving the ability to streamline the future projects so that it is more efficient providing information and to the public in the manner easy to understand and for decision makers as well. >> can i ask a general overview of ab1633? i don't want to ask anything to do that would be advice specific to this proposal but a general explanation. i know this sought to close the

ceqa loop hole in post entitlement appeals, so i don'ts know-my understanding is it is relatively new and if it is possible to get a explanation of what that is. >> thank you supervisor dorsey. we can answer that question. i will just say that, that is a relatively new law as you indicated and we are still digesting it and i do have staff member who can give our department perspective and of course our city attorney is available as well, but in general, this is a law that for the first time as we have this prosieding at the board of supervisors, that law is in effect and it is a one where it allows for a challenge under the housing accountability act against a lead agency, a city if let's say the city requires too much environmental review

by not finding certifying adopting or otherwise issuing a ceqa document when there is substantial evidence in the record that to support that determination. say again in the circumstance that would be the case. so if that were-saying this is how the law is, not saying those facts would apply here. that's just generally and we can give you more information about how the law works, but we have not yet had that experience with it, so we are still learning about it. would you like to know more or is that general overview--? >> seeing no other questions from members of the board, we will go to the representative of the real party interest, the project sponsor.

>> good afternoon. i'm [indiscernible] representing the project sponsor. if we can please have the laptop overhead for a couple slides. planning already indicated how and why ceqa review was proper and adequate. i will cover that as well. the end of the day this is about a 24 unit project and not allowing ceqa to be used as a means to delay and jeopardize new housing. this is a multifamily project in pacific heights with on site bmr. we dont see many of those proposed in this neighborhood. despite the fact all services and resources are there to support future residents. if you see the existing slide that is just current slide that shows the existing setting. the project sponsor is very proud to own a lanmarkbleding

and insure it continued maintenance preservation and future with the conversion to residential use. the site itself is a excellent example of infill development, corner building with vacant land on both interior sides of the property. the next slide you see the sacramento facade and the following slide you see the webster facade. from the beginning the project sponsor wanted to create a project feasible and one built but also one that fits in the neighborhood. we are not maximizing the state density bonus. the project is only doing a 26 percent bonus instead of 50 percent. with passive of [indiscernible] the bonus can be hundred percent which is much larger and look like something that we have on the following slide on the top. this is not what we are doing and the only reason i show this image is share the objective

always has been to create a good project that fits and works. i also want to mention that we have been very diligently working on this project for few years. the project has evolved based on feedback we received inudcluding from planning. the first neighbor meeting was [indiscernible] november 21. we had discussion with many neighbors including cpmc, the pacific hoa and others including the appellate. on the next and last slide and have side by side with the existing building and then the proposed project. we had two hearings in november at the historic preservation and planning commission. both approvals were unanimous. both commissions complement the design and neither wanted to change or condition further. this is the first gpe appeal but not unique or entirely new for the last 15 years, we have done many hundreds of cpe community plan evaluations.

cpe are based on the same ceqa statute as gpe. it is the same requirements the same text, same everything. the only difference is that instead of using a community plan eir, like the eir done for eastern neighborhood or central soma, gpe use the general plan eir which is the housing element. just because the housing element is city wide does not in itself make a difference. but agreeing with the appellate would undermine what we have done in the last 15 years. woo ehave a uzhoing element completed and certified without legal challenge based oen the need for san francisco to accommodate 82 thousand new housing units in the next 8 year rhna cycle and plan for 150 units before 2050 [indiscernible] that does not

mean that a gpe can be issued without any project level analysis. project analysis is always the case. been the case for 15 years and that is geing to be the case with gpe. plenty appeals to this board in the last 15 years. there is also been plenty gpe with historic buildings. i found at threes 33 issued oen projectst that involve historic resource. the appellate does a good job trying to confuse the record. there are incorrect [indiscernible] which is not this. i think the impression the appellate is trying to create is if gpe are allowed, ceqa review will never be required for residential project in the city ever again. that is as inaccurate as it gets and completely misses

realty. here full preserveeration review is done and several applicable topics were examined. if you accept the appeal and you send back on preservation specifically, there is nothing else to do. planning already did a full evaluation interior and exterior. i also note there is a little disconnect between some of the support letters the appellate submitted and what happened. several state for example that planning failed by not doing a full hre or analyzing interior both at those are also incorrect. i do want to do a quick comparison of cpe and the eastern neighborhood eir. when you look at the eastern neighborhood eir or any plan area eir it include a historic section and identifies existing and potential resources, explains how the zoning changes and height increases may be impact to resources and include

a list of mitigation measures. the same is true. 125 pages with same analysis. what the area plan don't do is analyze in detail future projects because we don't know what a future project looks like until we see it and when we know the level of addition and alteration proposed. what happened in eastern neighborhood and rincon hill, central soma, market and octavia and other plan areas, when you do a cpe, planning will do a project specific evaluation and that is what was done here so the gpe is no different. there is no question the building is historic resource. it is a landmark building. the landmark designation does not discuss interior, the library was a private library and not publicly accessible like a banking hall would be. it is used in the last few years as a private event space sw based on that planning

determines interior would be a resource. we actually disagreed but that is irrelevant because planning held the interior would be treated and analyzed as historic resource. planning did a project specific eval uation of the change proposed by the project, so the record include the hre part 1 and 2 and exterior and interior. mrs. maily submitted request to state historic preservation to nominate to national registerment we are not aware of the nomination. we appreciate the historic building and actually may have considered that on our own but we submit objection to nomination three weeks ago and the property cannot be listed in the national register over property owner objection. if the property was listed that would not change anything regarding the ceqa historic resource evaluation done because there is no heightened review for national register buildings. if we look prau what the

project does, it does preserve the building. we know projects that propose tearing down significant portions of building or adding multistory additions and this is not one of those projects. the changes proposing are fairly minimal. i want to conclude my bringing this together a little bit. the realty is the appellate does have a 2 unit condo next door and the webster addition portion will be right next to that building. what he is asking the board to do is oppose creation of 24 new housing units including on site bmr in pacific heights in order to not have the project next door. mr. drury objected to use of gpe arguing this will be the end of ceqa review. given the gpe efesktively are the same as cpe and we have a 15 year history of cpe, that is not going to happen.

the gp e will be subject to project level analysis and ceqa review is alive and ongoing. as for preserve vacation, the building and project were evaluated with same level of ceqa review that happens in a neg dec so nuthsing skipped or missed. at the end of this, it does matter when projects like this sents back to planning for environmental review. you have a feasible project in frunlt front of you. delay increase the cost and timing and that all impacts project feasibility and whether or not more housing is built. additionally, given ab1633 was adopted and became effective last month not upholding ceqa document is considered project denial unless written findings are made based othen 5 limited circumstances in that state

statute. in our opinion none of those circumstances exist here. but, we and you uphold the gpe and reject the appeal and happy to answer questions you may have. thank you very much. >> that concludes the presentation by the real party interest and seeing no names on the my roster for questions from colleagues, i will open up pubplic comment for those in opposition to appeal in support of the project sponsor. madam clerk, please call the first speaker. >> first speaker, you are ready to go. >> looks the exterior architectural elements could be easily replicated if the whole thing were torn down and he were to start from the ground up. as far as interior goes, that is surprising what i seen it looks like a near exact duplicate of the interior of the mechanics institute, including the spiral stairway,

the ceiling and library, which mechanic institute also has a library. placement of the murals. the murals look very very similar, but there are a bit different. yeah, looks like interior is a duplicate of the interior of the mechanics statute. >> thank you for comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon board. [indiscernible] on behalf of [indiscernible] calling for you to reject this appeal today and support this project moving forward. i think planning laid out a case of all the work they have done to actually make sure this is a order. not cutting corners here. they have been following the rules. not looking for some blanket exemption. this is about one project. smart adaptive reuse of historic resource that hasn't seen a lot of use in the past few years. we can do more with it.

this is a neighborhood one of the speakers preceding me indicated there isn't any development on this block in a hundred years. that is a long time. this is a neighborhood that is high resource, 24 new homes that someoneed can live in. that's a exciting opportunity in a place where we don't get that that much. those are things i want to focus on. the positives with this one. i do think that we are not laying the groundwork to bulldoze all our rules or anything like this and in this case, they have done what they need to do to present that case for you that this is good and should move forward and we shouldn't hold it up. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. jake price, housing action coalition. our project review committee revieweded and endorsed this project back in the fall of 2023 and the consensus from committee was this is the type of housing that we want to see.

infill development in high resource neighborhoods. as jean mentioned before me, this block has not seen new development in a hundred years and i think it is time for the whole city to do their fair share when we produce housing. we look at neighborhoods in the mission, in soma, kwr where in the dog patch that have shouldered the load on housing development and it is time the highest resource neighborhoods in san francisco do their fair share. if we can't say yes to a code compliant housing project in one of the highest resource nairbd neighborhoods in the city that has gone through the necessary process, what can we say yes to? i ask the board reject the appeal and approve housing the city desperately needs. thank you so much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> president peskin, memberoffs

the board. my name is jonathan, resident of pacific heights [indiscernible] i sent to each of you and the clerk a letter of support for 2395 for sacramento street and against the appeal. since i have given plenty pub luck comment in front of planning and historic preservation and authored the letter, you don't need to hear more my points and i'll use my time to read comments from [indiscernible] need to excuse since she had work obigations on short notice today. my name is liz miller and live in pacific hiteds and i want more neighbors. the other night a friend and i went to restaurant rchlt on the way out we chatted with a serverism we mentioned we were about to walk up the hill to go home. the serve said, you can walk to your place? we said yes. then asked where the server lives. before responded i knew he would not say san francisco and he shared he takes 90 minutes

to reach his job by car. people who grow the economy should be able to live here if they choose. that [indiscernible] they could spend with family, [indiscernible] when we deny housing in san francisco, we are saying it is fine for me to live here but not okay for others. this has been the pattern more then 40 years and we built a tiny fraction of housing needed to keep up with the jobs we add. someone built my home. it is only fair i should want more homes in my neighborhood for others like the server at the restaurant. my name is liz miller and live in pacific heights and want more neighbors. i will add a piece of color on my behalf. it is clear this is studied at length and shows we have a massive housing shortage. [indiscernible] have agreed on this housing element and planning said much of what happening here today in terms process is derived from the

housing element. please deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi. my name is tracey friedman a resident of san francisco for 40 years and lived in pacific heights 20 of those years kwr now in district 7 and i am very much in support of this project. i think it is as a long time member of [indiscernible] i know those blocks very well. i do not believe this is in any way an eye sore or any kind of a problem in the neighborhood. i think it is very tasteful infill project for what is indeed a high resource neighborhood. i will point out, i'm a high resource person. i have three children, none of which could ford to buy a home in san francisco despite having some inherited assets. this is not the way we need our city to go. i really do not appreciate ceqa

being misused when it does have very important uses. i appreciate your attention. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm the lynne newhouse siegel and lived in the neighborhood since 1985. i raised children here and i moved from two unit building to a 1926 high rise when people thought that was the future of this of our neighborhood. i walked past this spot many times. i sat on boards of organizations that you all know who do not support the appeal and we have opposed development frequently and i have been here to speak to planning and to

other city agencies opposing-supporting appeals like this. this one in particular i think would just be a delay. i think this is our opportunity for us in pacific heights and for us who are very fortunate to be able to choose where we live and how we live that we can be a example for all of san francisco and certainly for our neighborhood. i think this project should go forward. i think it is historically respectful, environmentally respectful. i will continue to pass it all the time. i will not be afraid of the wind. there are many other corners i pass on my way there that are way worse, and i hope that you will let this go forward so we can be proud of our neighborhood and example for how san francisco can go forward. thank you. >> thank you for your comments.

next speaker. >> hello. thanks for having me here again. i'm here because rather then working because i love the city. i care about the environment, but i do not support the appeal at all. if we are talking about environmental impact, i think a lot has been said about what is and is not part of ceqa and the housing like planning and what not, but consider the actual impact of having housing, especially considered dense housing. you have 38 bike parking. that isn't necessarily [indiscernible] a lot will be. that is a lot on bikes and not cars. fantastic for the environment. more people in a smaller area. it is just easier to get around, easier to walk places, it is better for the environment. and then if we talk historical

preservation, how do you preserve something? you can't leave in the past to be empty and not accessible to people and honesty, depressing to see it isn't open. you want to see things thrive. you want to see people and this project the fact that you basically see no change in the facade, it seems like a no-brainer in terms of historical preservation that is well preserved. finally, i'm not a legal expert, but as i said, both planning and the historical preservation department who job to determine these exact questions, they have done their work, they made their decision and that should be respected in my opinion unless we have grounded appeals made in good faith with strong evidence that was not previously considered. we need to build housing in san francisco less we look all local say in housing decisions.

thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi. good afternoon. my name is chris, i live in russian hill around polk and green and think the question i see is what is the environmental cost of not building this? what is the environmental cost of maintaining the status quo in the city and making as difficult as possible to build housing. i think the cost there is more and more people leaving the city moving to areas not well connected to transit and likely having to drive into the city interest jobs and school, and i think we have really aggressive goals in san francisco and california to shift away from cars and shifting towards transit and biking and i think projects like this that is very appropriate to the scale of the naerbd is a really good way to encourage that. i love this city and i just it makes me sad a lot of times i feel with friends conversations

are just about how long we think we can stay here. it doesn't seem a realistic plan for many people to afford living here long-term in a city hopefully we all love and i hope even through small projects like this we can learn to prioritize something that create more housing and also is a huge climate win, so thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon. jonathan a resident of the neighborhood here to voice support for the project at 2395 sacramento street and oppose the appeal. i support the project because it increases housing available and san francisco is housing is beneficial to the environment. this is the housing we need to build as the city changes and adapts. i ask you to reject the appeal and look forward welcoming new

residents to the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is andrew, a resident of pack heights and a environmentalist having spnt my entire career fighting to protect our planet. it is with values in mind i implore the board to move forward with the project. i work on decarbonization for the state government which makes me aware of the urge agency of our moment. we are now nearly half way through the critical decade for climate action. the decade where we can no long r put off critical climate choices. this housing development is one of those critical climate choices. you have the opportunity to create new homes in a high resource neighborhood building a denser neighborhood for more residents can live while driving less and consuming

lessism that is the environmentally friendly choice here. we must realize the environment demands we develop demands we build a greener city. as a resident of the neighborhood, and strong environmentalist, i urge you to move forward with the development on sacramento as the climate friendly and environmentally friendly option. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is elizabeth brandon a district 2 resident and was a destricate 2 resident of a child and lived else where making it back to this as people said highly resourced corner of san francisco. just in the last year i live only a few blocks from this project and with respect to some of the earlier comments on the other side of this equation, i live next to a building under construction, so i know about the noise and the shaking and so forth, but there

are things we put up with in the interest of adding new housing. i urge you find that this appellate has not met its burden of proof. this is a very prespectful carefully crafted projecktd in my view and welcome 24 new households in my neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is mike chen district 2 residents and organizer with northern neighbors for more housing and better neighborhoods. here to oppose the appeal and support the project. i live on the other side of lafayette park and i think it is a great place and speak on behalf of the people who could live in the building. this project will not demolish existing housing, no gentrification risk or displacement risks, it is prime place to add more people, more neighbors to find refuge to raise children here, who could

age in dignity here and give back to the city and patronize the businesses on fillmore and japantown. i hope you deny the appeal and note the state is watching. ab163 thrie the legal status changed, the housing element has changed landscape and we do not want repeat 469 stevenson. thank you. >> the reason why there- >> hold, you can't testify on both sides. [laughter] that is true. general public comment is still coming. don't go away, we look forward hearing from you more. any other members of the public here to speak in opposition to the appeal? seeing none, public comment on this portion of the hearing is

now closed. lastly, i invite the appellate or the representative of the appellate for a rebuttal argument not to exceed 3 minutes. >> thank you honorable supervisors. richard drury. lisa gibson put it welcome she said the housing element eir didn't analyze the project. that is the purpose of project level eir. that is the whole point. there is no project level eir and the housing element just doesn't cover it. there was also this argument that the gpe is [indiscernible] if you read ceqa back and forth, there is no such thing. this is made up bay by san francisco planning department. there is no such thing. mmd have specific legal requirements. they have to have binding enforcebable mitigation.

p circulated for public review and comment which this was not. the gpe was not. their have to impose all feasible mitigation measures, and if there is fair argument between experts on whether a impact is mitigated adequately or not, a eir is required so you have to go to higher level of review. none applies to a g pe because they don't exist. it is made up out of the minds of the planning department and ceqa does nlts allow that. you can't say we will do this other thing t. is as good as ceqa, but quicker. let us get away with it. that's not how ceqa works. the ceqa has a structure, has legally enforcement requirements and body of law behind it the staff is trying to avoid here. i also like to point out, they said we have done this a lot of time on community plans. community plans are very different then general plans. community plans cover maybe 10

square blocks of central soma. if you look at the community plans, they actually do analyze projects at a very granular level and if you are consistent with that, fine you don't have to do more ceqa review. staff admitted didn't analyze this project or any project and if this goes forward anything goes. any project can avoid ceqa review and that is dangerous. supervisor stefani if this comes down whether peculiar impact under 15183, there are three legal reasons why 15183 can apply. the project exceeds the density analyzed in the housing element eir. the density maximum of 19 units, this has 24. the height was 40 feet, this is 87 feet. 15183 doesn't apply at all.

two, peculiar impact i can't imagine a more peculiar impact then impact to a unique historic resource and 3, 15183 exclude off-site impact and that is something staff has ignored. that is different provision of 15183. this project admittedly has significant vibration, noise and wind. happy to take any questions. >> seeing no questions, i think that concludes the public hearing which has been held and filed. as discussed we will consider whether to affirm or conditionally reverse the exemption determination. colleagues we have anymore comments? supervisor stefani. >> thank you president peskin. as this is my district district 2, i have a few remarks. i have reviewed this project

and this appeal quite thoroughly and wanted to let everyone know my office and i met with both the project appellates and project sponsors over several meetings and during which the project sponsor heard directly from the appellates. the meetings did not provide the compromise i hoped for, they allowed me to gain background undertaken by the parties here today and as i said at that meeting that i'm here today judging this appeal, it is with my legal hat on as a lawyer, because what we are asked to do it engage in a legal exercise whether this appeal is legally valid and i have also prior real estate litigation attorney and this is something i reviewed thoroughly i told this isn't whether or not i like the project or housing or like people, it is whether or not i think a strong legal argument has been made and whether i think the

planning department made a legal argument that makes sense to me and here's where i landed on this. after reading all the briefs, going through the housing element, which we passed not all of it, obviously, did not read all of it, the relevant sections, but i do believe today that the debate centers on peculiar. peculiar is defined by the planning department outside the sound bounds of the studies analyst analysis and mitigation measures listed in the provision of the housing element passed unanimously by this board january 2023. the argument proposed by the appellate is that a project concerning a historic landmark is inherently peculiar. however, this ignores section 4.2 of the housing element

environmental impact report specifically analyzes the potential impacts of future housing development on cultural resources, such as landmark buildings like the one before us today. section 4.2, contemplates the potential for proposed project to impact cultural resources and outlines a meticulous set of required mitigation measures applied to individual projects as needed. the 2395 sacramento project went through extensive analysis as we heard from planning department and mitigation process. during which the planning department identified no new impacts beyond those listed in the housing element environmental impact report. as such, the planning department determined this project is not peculiar. clearly the general plan evaluation follows the provision outlined in section

4.2 of the environmental impact report analyzing impact of this specific project and applying necessary mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less then significant. if we follow the appellate argument, that this section is insufficient in analyzing this specific project, then all projects can be considered peculiar prohibiting streamlining all together and making this the housing element eir pretty much irrelevant. i think it is also important to note here that no appeal was filed against the housing element environmental impact report following passage, nor appeal filed against the certificate of appropriateness in this case. additionally, the appellate argue the housing element eir specifically stated it was not conducting any project level

ceqa analysis and further ceqa analysis would be required for specific projects when they are proposed. that is absolutely false. when the board certified the housing element, board file 23001, the packet contained the environmental impact report. page 11 of the environmental impact report states that and it is right here, likewise, ceqa section 21155.10 and provisions of the ceqa guidelines including sections 15183 and 15183.3 provide for streamline review of certain projects consistent with it development density established by general plan policy for which a eir is certified. this will support streamlined environmental review for future activities that are consistent with and implement the policies of the updated housing element

following adoption. such activities could include legislation to change in zoning and land use regulation and approval action for individual development projects. that is contained in the housing element eir and in accord wns with ceqa and housing element a streamlined environmental review was conducted through completion of the general plan evaluation. the review studied exterior and interior of the historic building, impacts on cultural resources accessed and measures implemented to insurless significant. [indiscernible] interior of the lane medical library. however, this appeal-this hearing isn't appeal of the

certificate of appropriateness, the approval document from the historic preservation commission that passed out of that preservation body passed unanimously and like i said, no appeal was filed. today the appellate argued for mitigated negative declaration and want everything put in that type document, yet as we heard from the planning department, a mitigating negative declaration would have no additional substantive study, only additional process. passing the housing element was not a exercise in futility, it was a policy document that laid out how our city more efficiently approve and build housing. we have a chance to say yes to a housing project unanimously passed the planning commission and the historic preservation commission. we have a chance to build affordable housing and family housing in a high resource area

and district 2. for that reason colleagues, i would like to make a motion to approve item 22 and reject item 23 and 24. >> motion made by supervisor stefani, seconded by supervisor dorsey. on that motion made and seconded to approve item 22 and table item 23 and 24, a roll call, please. >> ronan, aye. safai, aye. stefani, aye. walton, aye. chan, aye. dorsey, aye. engardio, aye. mandelman, aye. melgar, aye. peskin, no. preston, aye. there are 10 ayes and 1 no with supervisors voting no. >> the motion is approved.

madam clerk, lets go back to roll call for introduction. >> supervisors walton you are next for introductions. >> thank you so much madam clerk. colleagues, today i am introducing a resolution on behalf of the youth commission to declare february as teen dating violence awareness and prevention month. our youth commissioners linda yee and skylar dang worked with the black woman revolt against domestic violence and youth advisory council to come up with this resolution. which passed unanimously by the youth commission on january 22, 2024. the youth commission ilwith also partner with black women revolt to host a love like that event to raise awareness of impact of teen dating violence among san francisco youth. 1 in 3 high schoolers will experience dating abuse before high school graduation. young people are impacted by

abusive relationships to physical, sexual violence, psychological aggression or stalking from a current or intimate partner. dating violence can also occur digitally through social media and electronic communications and young people experiencing violence are more likely to be vulnerable to long-term behavioral and health consequences. including mental trauma and drug abuse, which also increase risk of violence and adulthood and future relationships. therefore it is crucial to educate young people about the signs of domestic violence to set them up for success by allowing them to recognize for themselves what healthy non violent relationships look like. i want to thank commissioner yee and dang for putting this forward and passing with black women revolt against domestic violence through the youth commission. also want to thank my early

cosponsors, ronan, melgar, safai, and preston. the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisors chan. submit. thank you. supervisors dorsey. >> thank you madam clerk. colleagues today i'm call frg a hearing before public safety and neighborhood service to consider impact of permanent supportive housing including possible requirements or policies for on site security services and inviting department of homelessness supportive housing to report. permanent supportive house sg a essential part of our city social safety net to provide exit from homelessness and i have seen personally in my district and else where how psh creates housing stability for individuals and families and how it can chaichck lives the better. along with only a couple colleagues here i represent

communities that have a disproportionate concentration of these facilities including two buildsings the city acquired through the home key funding last fall. over the last few mupths our office received significant community feedback concern and many complaints about existing as well as future psh sites primarily focused safety and security. the complaints manifest into public obsition which i think may if we don't act substantially diminish the public support for this critical category of housing if left unaddressed. the departments lack of clarity and consistency around when and where it provides security directly or as requirement for property managers overseeing facilities is i think a contributing factor to the opposition we are seeing to this badly needed housing option. my fear is we will find it more and more difficult to win public support for projects and

san franciscans are policy makers in this realm. thesh is something san franciscans voted on and to fund and important we maintain and win their confidence. district 6 residents are compassionate peep. the soma community absorbed a significant amount of these and other supportive facilities over the last decade and more recently soma residents saw disproportionate impact from the placement of shelter in place hotels during covid-19 pandemic. the combination of challenges and diminished safety in street conditions we are seeing in many parts of soma this is a clustering of housing and service facilities creating anxiety concern and distrust of city government and i have not seen this level of mistrust in 30 years of working for city government. as police response times lag due to under staffing crisis and sidewalks are sometimes

impassable due to encampments, the compassion of district 6 residents are tested so i introduce a hearing to inphage with the community surrounding on matters of public safety and security. the residents want to understand the department policies and provide input how best to insure projects are benefit not only to the people who live there and the community as a whole and the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisor engardio. submit. thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you madam clerk. i have a little update from my service on the transbay joint powers authority where i serve as vice chair. the portal or downtown rail extension project made significant strides in 2023 under the accelerated work plan which includes two major submissions to federal transit

administration and project procurement to issuance of the request for qualifications for the civil tunnel progressive design build contract. tjpa is expecting to receive formal response from the fta this month with the project rating and advancement to engineering bay of the grant process at which time fta will establish the grants share and dollar terms. we are hoping and believing that will be on the order of about $4 billion for the $8 billion project. funded at the regional state and federal level continue to be imperative activity to lock in the non fta funds to secure the grant agreement and address what we anticipate will be a $2 billion budget gap, which is daunting, but we hope when we fill. response to the rfq were due to

tjpa january 21, 2024 and work is continuing among the partner agencies on preparation and review of the package issued to proposer identified through the process. the downtown extension project continues along we hope and we hope we are within sight in the next year or two of perhaps being able to start construction on that. the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor mandelman. supervisor melgar. >> thank you madam clerk. i have a couple things today. as you know, i'm a recent addition to the budget and finance committee. we are going to have difficult year. i'm confident that with our chair we will get through it. i take this new assignment as a honor and feel a duty to use each public dollars efficiently.

today i'm requesting that the budget and legislative analyst office draft a report for all funds we have been awarded by the state and federal government that we have subsequently lost, because we havet nobeen able to comply with the terms or didn't have capacity to spend them. last year we received a total of $977 million in funding from the federal government and $1.2 billion in funding from the state of california that is nearly a 6th of our entire budget. however, it has come to my attention some of the funds that have been granted were not being spent and i do personally have a little experience at that since when i was hired many years ago at the mayor office cof housing i was hired specifically to be able to rescue millions of dollars we have gotten from hud that had not been spent. when we are facing $800 million

deficit, we have no wiggle room. we need to pinch every penny and fully utilize every dollar to maintain service for san francisco residents. that is why i'm asking for the report to outline how many funds have there been that have been lost between 2018 and 23, which departments have seen the most in least funds lost and most frequent reasons for the loss of said funds. i expect the result of the report will help us chart a path how we can do better. making the change is necessary to balance our budget require, critical eye and inquisitive look how we can do better. i thank supervisor chan, chair of the budget committee for her coauthorship of this request and look forward to working with my other colleagues on the budget finance committee to balance our budget and putting san francisco first. also requesting a hearing on pacific gas and electric pg&e

response to reacurrent and extended power outages. hearing request-i want to say i'm immensely grateful to the first responder team for san francisco, to public works, for the sfpuc and department of emergency management for their work in preparing and responding to the most recent storms. they continue to do an amazing job communicating with the general public and elected officials. we still have just under a thousand san francisco residents without power. we have heard from constituents that they are unable to deal with basics of life, storing and preparing food, charging hearing aids, cars, personal devices. parts of my district have been dealing with extended outages. some neighborhoods had no power

since the storm and continuing to experience not having restoration power for 2 or 3 more days beyond today. however, this has a issue that predated the storm and district 7 west portal and golden gate heights and parts of innersunset have experienced reoccurring outages unannounced since early january. some of these-most of these outages were not weather related at all. part of west portal a southern portion of west portal saw power outages that necessitate stores to be closed for a half day or entire day. i request pg&e come present on the reoccurrent power outages not related to storm, and on the communication that they have with their customers.

there have been no out reach and most often the maps put out by pg&e do not reflect the realty of where outages are or when the power is turned back on. pg&e as we all know have recently raised their rates to consumer as a result of their negligent and we are deal wg all this, so i think they can and must do better and we must hold them accountable to the extent we can. the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisor preston. >> thank you madam clerk. i are just wanted to provide a update on the board and commissions on lafco in particular and start off by thanking jeremy pollock or executive officer for lafco and [indiscernible] the clerk

office for all their support of the lafco meetings. a few-updates just on lafco has been fast busy with some studies and wanted to give a brief summary of some of the ones presented recently at the board meetings. so, first on battery storage lafco initiated the first studies as part of the mou with puc on renewable energy invasion of battery storage. when used to store solar pow er generated during the day for usage during peak demand in the evening. this lafco study makes recommendation how to promote battery storage insuring high fire safety standards in our

dense city. second is green banking. lafco is building oen the work of the reinvestment working group and plan to study how san francisco could create a green bank as part of the public bank work that would be eligible for inflation reduction act funding at our january lafco meeting policy analyst samurai presented additional details on the estimated pre-opening cost of a green bank and lafco convened a green finance working group that include the puc, department of environment, treasurer, mohcd and department of homelessness and supportive housing and the working group has discussed potential pilot projects for green bank to finance electrification and energy efficiency work on city affordable housing using inflation reduction act funds

from the federal government. next midtown park apartments, that you are all familiar with from our legislative efforts to move forward not just in what we previously did in preventing or reversing unfair rent hikes but engage in planning process to lead by the residents to plot out the long-term future of midtown. lafco initiated its first study related to municipal housing which examine the future management. the consultants and thank [indiscernible] midtown residents on january 20 i was pleased to be able to attend and there's also the first site visits for the property

conditions assessment independent evaluation and that occurred on january 30 and january 31, so i want to thank [indiscernible] inform the study and mike simmons for facilitate the sited visits so there is independent estimates of what exactly work is needed at midtown. and also most importantly really want to thank ongo engagement from midtown residents who have been engaging in this planning process. last but not least lafco at our january meeting lafco authorized the issuance of rfp to study the recommended structure for a municipal housing agency. this study was a key recommendation of the housing

stability fund oversight board that was created to guide the expenditures of prop i funds and the study will inform the implementation of the 2020 ballot measure prop k which you recall authorized the city to own develop construct acquire or rehab up to 10 thousand units of low income rental housing so we are excited to see some progress moving forward on the mandate from prop k in terms of the development of municipal housing and lafco plans to post that rfp this week, next meeting from lafco is march 15, 10 a.m. and the rest i submit. thank you. >> thank you supervisor preston. seeing no names on the roster that concludes introduction of new business. >> thank you. let's go to public comment, please. >> at this time you with line up on your right hand side and

so we are setting the timer for 2 minutes. you can speak to items 28-33 on the adoption without reference to committee calendar, all other content has already been reported out by a board committee or a hearing where the public comment requirement has been fulfilled. come up to the podium. first speaker. >> i keep my [indiscernible] warning, you are going back to elementary school. all i said last year honesty was preschool. [indiscernible] means you can't lie, that is why we see all this ugliness and it doesn't

work. we don't want to work for profit anymore. [indiscernible] it leads to extreme low level of intelligence. symbolized by creating [indiscernible] artificial intelligence can exist. as if intelligence could be defined without emotion. this is so low level of intelligence it is unbelievable. that is why you need to go back to elementary school. all of you here is why i look at the camera too. i hope this is clear, 35 seconds. 33. i'm going to repeat. i cannot highly recommend

anybody using public comment to please think and brainstorm a little bit to address anybody in this chamber. because, somebody is trying to catch what i say. that's not a good idea. you don't delete what i say. you will be unhappy if you keep doing that. that's not a good. have a nice day, guys. >> next speaker, please. >> jesus said if a man be my disciple and does not hate his mother and father and brother and sisters and hate his on life he cannot be my disciple. who shall-that was a little off. if any man come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brother and sisters and his own life

also he cannot be my disciple and who ever does not bear his cross and come after me can not be my disciple so likewise, who he be of you that for sakes not all he has can not be my disciple. there is a guy you never heard of, alex [indiscernible] a preacher and caused waves in the christian community because he tds you should go to same sex wedding and bring a gift and don't speak against it because you don't want to be judgmental, but the word judgmental is not in the bible. the word judge is in the bible and in luvit cs sapter 9, thou shall not hate [indiscernible] rebuke and not allow him to send. love neighbor as myself. love one another. for he that loves another is

fulfilled the law. we just read that in the law. the law is [indiscernible] not commit adultry, not kill, steal, bear false witness or comment. but love your neighbor as yourself. love works no ill to neighbor. love is fulfilling of the law. now we have it turned arun jesus made waves, jesus made enemies. he said he came to set the wurgd world on fire. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello everyone. my name is carlos, homeless and advocate for people like me currently homeless. madam clerk, thank you. regarding last week and specific i'll say specific comments about specific electeds, i invite you to

consider whether or not in those moment you are standing on the side of community or you are standing on the side of comfort of electeds. in this town, it is real dirty, or a lot of people who don't like people in politics. i only heard stellar things about you. ever. madam clerk. i know your character, i just invite you to consider that when you are saying that to someone who is giving public comment. specifically, our beloved board president is not here, not sure if he's using the restroom or what the deal is, but i'm sad because he hurt my feelings and i wanted to say things directly to him, but some folks however powerful are comfortable hiding. to each their own. i was going to say, it is ironic last week he stands on democratic process given his well documented hatred of public comment. because i come in here

schistied up i'm some sort of terrorist or white supremacist. he is in the white power structure in this town. he think just because he is progressive he can't be oppressive. give me a break. the political culture in the town is -who is at the core? many people. you go into the office and doesn't-you can feel a [indiscernible] that's what it is. he's going to act like people out here out raged from the community are making terroristic threats. we are over it. i don't care who you are. as a side bar, shamann you can do no wrong. same goes for you dean. much love. >> just for the point of information, my job is to uphold the board rule of order. happy to sit with you and point them out to you as they come up. >> jordan my pronouns are she

and they. i want to make a weekly thing. you haven't run my clock yet. to pray for supervisors preston [indiscernible] he has done to serve our neighborhood and a good supervisors. i'm offended supervisors dorsey decided to introduce a hearing without us. that doesn't help us. also [indiscernible] nob if i walked up to this podium and started quoting lyricoffs the moderates my ass would be tossed thin slammer. i guess one set of rules for [indiscernible] and one for us commoners. [indiscernible] engardio, mandelman, dorsey [indiscernible] because of some white want to be murdered a

progressive suit, the mayor would [indiscernible] something that needs to be fixed. i had transphobic death threats publicly. i got threatened with death by fire pie d6 resident [indiscernible] i got threatened with dog mauling [indiscernible] threaten gun violence and i don'ts go to the cops but can't blame the suits. catherine stefani needs to stop lying to the press [indiscernible] she supports us starving oen the streets and transwomen raped in men prison. [indiscernible] >> next speaker. >> resident of san francisco. board of supervisors, meeting agenda tuesday february 6, 2024.

members of the public may address the board of supervisors for up to 3 minutes. if it is 2, then say it is 2. if is is 3, say it is 3. the press wasn't here today. they could have acknowledged the lawsuit involving laguna honda hospital. i believe you had a final vote on it. here we go with california welfare institutional code 15600h. the legislature find declare elderly person independent adults are disadvantaged class that cases of abuse of these persons are seldom prosecuted as criminal matters and few cases brought in connection with this abuse due to problems of proof, court delay and lack of incentives to prosecute. the lack of incentive to

prosecute. [indiscernible] long-term local law enforcement agency receive referral or complaints. if there are crimes committed by publicly employees you should inform the fbi for offenses against a person. not just locing local law enforcement. also take allegations from many other source having reasonable cost and know the welfare of the elder or dependent adult is [indiscernible] correct the situation. myself and my partner randy who is resident of laguna honda have been denied this right. [indiscernible] nothing like- >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon supervisors. linda i represent district 4 on the san francisco youth commission. i serve as justice committee chair. today is where orange day which aim to recognize and raise awareness of teen dating abuse. as mentioned by supervisor walton, 1 in 3 high schooler experience abuse before graduation. 1 in 10 youth report physical violence in a dating relationship. these young people experiencing violence are more likely to be vulnerable to long-term behavioral health consequences including mental trauma and drug abuse. it is crucial to educate young people to allow to recognize for themselves what hethy non violent relationships look like. the san francisco youth commission has been working in partnership with black woman revolt against dating domestic

violence to raise awareness about teen dating violence for san francisco youth. also voted unanimous ly to support the recognition of teen dating violence awareness month. i want to take a moment to thank supervisor walton for working with the youth commission to introduce this resolution to the board and other cosponsors for the support. that said, i urge the board of supervisors to support the recognition of the month of february as teen dating month awareness and prevention month to incrblg encourage teen dating violence and affirm the right to experience a healthy relationships free from daelting abuse and adolescence and belong for all young people in the city and county of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you commissioner yee for your comments. welcome mrs. chandler. >> can you show that-thank you. appreciate it. okay. >> we can see it. >> my name is mrs. chandler.

cultural representative heritage of my nation, my people descendant of the african slave trade. i just wanted to just bring here this is the san francisco unified school district and i had-i went there today to meet with the set up a meeting with the school superintenant in regards to my grandson's school. as a young boy by the name of christian who called my grandson a--in school and they contacted me to let me know this young latino child had called my grandson a--and the principal had asked the young boy why did he call my grandson a--and he said, that it is in his home that the black nation

is addressed as--and so i asked the principal, what is she go ing to do about this young boy calling my grandson--i asked did my grandson say anything to him and they said no. she told she was going to suspend the young boy for one day. it was close to christmas going to new years on a thursday she was going to suspend him so i let my grandson know. by the way, i said let's talk to the mother and see how we can work it out and the mother said she couldn't meet because she was working late and was going to take her son out of school. i said to her, you can run but you can't hide. i said if you are teaching your children to talk concerning the black nation with racial slurs then the next school you would go to you will do the same i i said with that i'm going to create a anti-hate bill and going to name it benyokel

versus christian, you son. they agreed to meet with us. >> thank you for your comments. thank you kindly. all the best to you. [speaking in the background] thank you for your comments. mr. duffy. happy to come take that from you. okay. go right ahead. >> we going to need more then 2 minutes or 3, whatever. >> it was a pleasant day by the stands of most america and for february so i came out. i like to note some of the

hypocrisy. not discussing the issue itself of the people supporting the or opposing the appeal. i'm not sure raising- >> we can't talk about that. >> not talking about it, talking about the general issue of raising density how that is somehow environmental or these are very often the same group of people that there are cities in europe that have face constraints for a very long time and up to 80 or 90 percent of housing is mandatorily affordable. they make it affordable how people-these are the same people that oppose it. we can have most housing units in san francisco be affordable, we could do that but these people oppose it. it is a downer but i have been watching the international and national scene and it looks like president biden is not going to win in michigan. i wonder if we should be

thinking about as we do our planning, what is going to happen when the presidency and both houses of congress are republican. i guess we are going to cross the bridge when we come to it. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> some of you may recall that many years ago people gathered to protest through testimony the outraging financial charges they face into their admission into san francisco general hospital. one former patient stated he waited several days in a ward for a broken leg rather then transferred to a hospital within his insurance network which would have been the sensible decision for a number reasons. instead he was charged 10s of thousands of dollars in fees for the time between admission

and much delayed surgery. finally the board of supervisors determined to cap such cost at $4 thousand per incident. now i believe something similar circumstance may be at play within the local system that is to say that in the case of first time offenders individuals with limited means as opposed to no means may be carried over the prescribed time to trial rather then timely released with a reasonable conditions and admonishment so defendants [indiscernible] which rise accordingly considerably however not necessarily in the interest of justice. something else to look at. >> thank you for your comments. any other members of the public who would like to address the

board during general public comment? seeing no one jump up i'll hand it back. >> public comment is now closed. madam clerk, let's go to for adoption without committee reference. >> 28-33 were introduced for adoption without committee reference. a unanimous vote is required on first reading today. a member may request resolution on first reading to go to committee. >> thank you madam clerk. i see there are colleagues who have items they want severed. >> i like to add a cosponsor to items 30 and 31. >> thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> i like to server 29. >> thank you. supervisor dorsey. >> i like to sever item 28 and like to add myself as cosponsor to items 29, 30 and proud year

of the dragon baby myself, item 31. >> thank you. supervisor safai. >> thank you. i like to be added as cosponsor to 29, 30 and 31. >> thank you. supervisor stefani. >> thank you. i too like to be added to item 29, 30 and 31. >> thank you. supervisor preston. >> thank you. please add me if i'm not already on item 31. >> thank you supervisor preston. madam clerk, please add me to item 31 and i like to sever item 32. i see supervisor engardio. >> add me to 29. missed that one, sorry. >> thank you supervisor engardio. seeing no one else on the roster, madam clerk, can we get roll call vote on item 30 and 31 and 33? >> 30 and 31 and 33.

ronan, aye. [roll call] 10 ayes. >> thank you. the resolutions and motions are approved and adopted. madam clerk, please call item 28. >> resolution to commemorate the 20 anniversary of winter of love in san francisco on february 12, 2024. >> thank you. supervisor dorsey. >> thank you mr. president. colleagues i want to start expressing gratitude for aoonanimously cosponsors the

resolution recognizing the 20 anniversary of had winter of love which took place between february 12 and march 11 of 2004. this began with a bold decision by mayor newsom to issue marriage license to same sex couples in ways i don't think we could have seen at the time. it was a decade long legal and public relations battle and struggle to win hearts and minds that finally achieve marriage equality in ways i never expected i would see in my lifetime. i had a front row seat a member of the city attorney's office working for dennis herrera and i was in the office next to terry stuart, we were the two queer members of the city attorney executive staff and for both this was incredibly meaningful. there were times that i would come back to the office i would go out for lunch in city hall and go through and watch some of the weddings taking place

and it was so move to see. this wasn't something i imagined i would be seeing and come back to the office and asked and be wheepy like what happened and i said i was at a wedding and they say whos and i was no idea. it was something special and i also think it was--we here in city hall and we here on the board of supervisors may have our disagreements as we should because this is democracy but it is a enduring lessen we as san franciscans stand together we really can change the world so there is a lessen in that. i like to make sure i invite everybody next valentine's day february 14 city hall will celebrate the 20 anniversary of winter of love at noon to

commemorate past and present leaders instrumental in this. we will honor many involved. not least of all celebrate the pioneering couples who more then any gave up their privacy and put their relationships on the line and in doing so change hearts and minds in ways that changed history itself. thanks again for cosponsorship and hope to see you valentine's day. >> thank you supervisor dorsey. i don't see anyone on the roster so we'll take item 28 same house same call. without objection this resolution is adopted. madam clerk, please call item 29. >> item 29 is resolution to

support the university professional and technical employee communication workers of america local 9119 optometrist strike and urge the university of california to reach a fair agreement recognizing essential labor for san francisco. >> thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you. colleagues, on january 17uc optometrist across the state-i introduced the resolution last week to get on record in support of [indiscernible] the 9119 optometrist strike and urge the university of california administration to reach a fair agreement recognizing the labor for u.s. home to excellent eye care. uc eye care rely on doctors represented by the

[indiscernible] [speaker speaking too fast] work with vulnerable population to insure they receive high quality treatment and care. optometrist voted to unionize and since the start of january 2023 they have been in bargaining with administration to secure a first contract. many issues are ones we see across the helt care system including under staffing and major patient back logs. the resolution request the administration reach agreement with [indiscernible] 9119 that recognizes and addresses the issues raised by uc optometrist and acknowledge the vital and significant vital contribution make to the health and wellbeing of the people of san francisco. i want to thank i think everybody here for your cosponsorship. i urge an aye vote. >> thank you so much supervisor

mandelman. i don't see anyone else on the roster so we'll take item 29 same house same call and without objection the resolution is adopted. madam clerk, please call item 32. >> item 32, resolution to declare february 11, 2024 also known as super bowl sunday as 9er day and san francisco 49er day in the city and county of san francisco. >> thank you madam clerk. colleagues i'm going to be brief. this is super sunday this weekend. not many cities can say their team is in the super bowl and not many get to celebrate their 8 attendance in the super bowl. as we fight to make more history our beloved 49ers need to know the city is behind them. i want to take the time to thank the entire board of supervisors for naming this sunday february 11, 2024 49er day in san francisco.

typically i was scream 9er right now, but i don't want to be a bad example to the public and without anybody else on the roster we take the item same house same call. madam clerk, can ayou [reading names] in memoriam s. adjourn in memory of the following beloved individual, on behalf of supervisor ronan and supervisors melgar for the late mr. oscar fernando grande. >> thank you madam clerk. do we have anymore business before us today? >> that concludes our business. >> thank you colleagues, this meeting is adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

>> so i'm linda i'm part owner and manager of the paper tree in jeopardy an town. >> paper tree opened by my parent in 1968. so we other second oldest business in jap an town. at 55 years this year. we have beautiful papers from japan, thailand, italy, korea

and the biggest selection of orgami. i do it because of my grand father and he wrote to the first english in it in the early 50s. he had an import business to import japanese goods and of course we had our line of paper. to go with the books he produced. it is something i have been doing since i was 5 and i'm happy to say i'm a designer now and of course having paper tree. it is grit. >> during the pandemic i wanted do something to make a statement to help combat the asian hate that was prevalent at that time. and so i put a call out to have a thousand hearts. this is a spin on the tradition of holding 1,000 cranes when you have a wish.

well, a thousand cranes does not make a statement enough why not change it and a call for a thousand hearts? i created a website dedicated to the project. a video and fold heart instructions. people sent them in the first mont was 1,000 hearts. they kept coming in. and the next goal was 7, 698, which was the total number of case of reported hate by the ap i website. those were the reported case of hate. there are more not reported. that became the new goal. we achieved 2 months later. the hearts were coming in it it is a big project, we have it part of our store. anyone can come and fold an easy heart. keeping that part of the japanese tradition of this in that way here in japantown is pretty special.

its great. >> making to may grandkids a program all about pop ups, artists, non profits small business in into vacant downtown throughout the area for a three to 6 months engagement. >> i think san francisco is really bright and i wanted to be a part of it revitalization. >> i'm hillary, the owner of [indiscernible] pizza. vacant and vibrant got into safe downtown we never could have gotten into pre-pandemic. we thought about opening downtown but couldn't afford it

and a landlord [indiscernible] this was a awesome opportunity for us to get our foot in here. >> the agency is the marriage between a conventional art gallery and fine art agency. i'm victor gonzalez the founder of gcs agency. thes program is especially important for small business because it extended huge life line of resources, but also expertise from the people that have gathered around the vacant to vibrant program. it is allowed small businesses to pop up in spaces that have previously been fully unaccessible or just out of budget. vacant to vibrant was funded by a grant from the office of economic workforce development that was part of the mayor's economic recovery budget last year so we funded our non

profit partners new deal who managed the process getting folks into these spaces. >> [indiscernible] have been tireless for all of us down here and it has been incredible. certainly never seen the kind of assistance from the city that vacant to vibrant has given us, for sure. >> vacant to ibvooerant is a important program because it just has the opportunity to build excitement what downtown could be. it is change the narrative talking about ground floor vacancy and office vacancy to talking about the amazing network of small scale entrepreneur, [indiscernible] >> this is a huge opportunity that is really happy about because it has given me space to showcase all the work i have been doing over the past few

years, to have a space i can call my own for a extended period of time has been, i mean, it is incredible. >> big reason why i do this is specific to empower artist. there are a lot of people in san francisco that have really great ideas that have the work ethics, they just don't have those opportunities presented, so this has been huge lifeline i think for entrepreneurs and small businesses. >> this was a great program for us. it has [indiscernible] opening the site. we benefited from it and i think because there is diverse and different [indiscernible] able to be down here that everybody kind of benefits from it. story.

>> hi he my name is dean pes

continue district 5 supervise and congratulate it sfgovtv on their thirty year anniversary thank you, so much for bringing transparency and accountability to government and for all you do happy anniversary. >> on behalf of all we want to say thank you, sfgovtv thank you for being here. and your help in the women's leadership convention and congratulations sfgovtv on our thirty years of service the office of government affairs he happy to partner

[♪♪♪] >> i just don't know that you can find a neighborhood in the city where you can hear music stands and take a ride on the low rider down the street. it is an experience that you can't have anywhere else in san francisco. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> district nine is a in the southeast portion of the city. we have four neighborhoods that i represent. st. mary's park has a completely

unique architecture. very distinct feel, and it is a very close to holly park which is another beautiful park in san francisco. the bernal heights district is unique in that we have the hell which has one of the best views in all of san francisco. there is a swinging hanging from a tree at the top. it is as if you are swinging over the entire city. there are two unique aspects. it is considered the fourth chinatown in san francisco. sixty% of the residents are of chinese ancestry. the second unique, and fun aspect about this area is it is the garden district. there is a lot of urban agriculture and it was where the city grew the majority of the flowers. not only for san francisco but for the region. and of course, it is the location in mclaren park which is the city's second biggest park after golden gate. many people don't know the neighborhood in the first place if they haven't been there. we call it the best neighborhood nobody has ever heard our.

every neighborhood in district nine has a very special aspect. where we are right now is the mission district. the mission district is a very special part of our city. you smell the tacos at the [speaking spanish] and they have the best latin pastries. they have these shortbread cookies with caramel in the middle. and then you walk further down and you have sunrise café. it is a place that you come for the incredible food, but also to learn about what is happening in the neighborhood and how you can help and support your community. >> twenty-fourth street is the birthplace of the movement. we have over 620 murals. it is the largest outdoor public gallery in the country and possibly the world. >> you can find so much political engagement park next to so much incredible art. it's another reason why we think

this is a cultural district that we must preserve. [♪♪♪] >> it was formed in 2014. we had been an organization that had been around for over 20 years. we worked a lot in the neighborhood around life issues. most recently, in 2012, there were issues around gentrification in the neighborhood. so the idea of forming the cultural district was to help preserve the history and the culture that is in this neighborhood for the future of families and generations. >> in the past decade, 8,000 latino residents in the mission district have been displaced from their community. we all know that the rising cost of living in san francisco has led to many people being displaced. lower and middle income all over the city. because it there is richness in this neighborhood that i also mentioned the fact it is flat and so accessible by trip public

transportation, has, has made it very popular. >> it's a struggle for us right now, you know, when you get a lot of development coming to an area, a lot of new people coming to the area with different sets of values and different culture. there is a lot of struggle between the existing community and the newness coming in. there are some things that we do to try to slow it down so it doesn't completely erase the communities. we try to have developments that is more in tune with the community and more equitable development in the area. >> you need to meet with and gain the support and find out the needs of the neighborhoods. the people on the businesses that came before you. you need to dialogue and show respect. and then figure out how to bring in the new, without displacing the old. [♪♪♪] >> i hope we can reset a lot of the mission that we have lost in the last 20 years. so we will be bringing in a lot

of folks into the neighborhoods pick when we do that, there is a demand or, you know, certain types of services that pertain more to the local community and working-class. >> back in the day, we looked at mission street, and now it does not look and feel anything like mission street. this is the last stand of the latino concentrated arts, culture and cuisine and people. we created a cultural district to do our best to conserve that feeling. that is what makes our city so cosmopolitan and diverse and makes us the envy of the world. we have these unique neighborhoods with so much cultural presence and learnings, that we want to preserve. [♪♪♪]

you're watching san francisco rising with chris manors. today's special guest is jeff tumlin. >> hi, i'm chris manors and you're watching san francisco rising. the show on starting, rebuilding, and reimagining our city. our guest is jeff tumlin and he's with us to talk about our transportation recovery plan and some exciting projects across the city. mr. tumlin welcome to the show. >> thank you for having me. >> i know the pandemic was particularly challenging for the m.t.a. having to balance between keeping central transportation routes open, but things have improved. how are we doing with our transportation recovery plan? >> so we just got good news this week. we're getting an extra $115 million from the american rescue plan and this is basically the exact amount of

money we finally needed in order to close the gap between now and november of 2024 when we'll have to find some additional revenue sources in order to sustain the agency. in the meantime, i finally have the confidence to be able to rapidly hire, to restore services and to make sure muni is there for san francisco's larger economic recovery because downtown san francisco doesn't work without muni. >> quite right. i guess the other impact of the pandemic was that some projects like the valencia bike improvements had to be put on hold. are we starting to gear up on those again? >> yes, so it's an interesting case study. of right before covid hit, we were about ready to invest in quick build bike lanes. arguably the most important bike order in san francisco. that got stopped with lockdown

and then as you'll recall, during covid, we invented all kinds of other new programs like shared spaces in order to support our small businesses as well as sunday street light events for neighborhood commercial streets where streets were closed off to cars and turned over to commercial activity. those successes now that they've been made permanent actually interrupt the draft design we had put together. so we've gone back to the drawing board and we are looking forward to having some additional community conversations about other design ideas for valencia. we're committed to completing a quick build project on this calendar year. >> that's such good news. valencia is a really great street for biking. so there are two huge and exciting projects that are about to be or have just been completed. let's talk about the bus rapid transit project on van ness avenue. how extensive have the improvements been?

>> what's called the van ness transit rapid project is in fact more about complete reconstruction of the street and most importantly, the 100-year-old utilities underneath the street. so all of the water, sewer, telecommunications, gas lines under the street were basically rebuilt from market street all the way to lumbard. the part on the surface which provides dedicated bus lanes for golden gate transit and muni, that was relatively straight forward and we're so excited we're going to start revenue service for muni on april 1st. >> that's fantastic. i understand there were some sidewalk improvements too. >> there were sidewalk improvements. we planted 374 trees. there is new storm water treatment including infiltration in the sidewalk, there's a bunch of art.

there's all kinds of things. we put in new street lights for the entire corridor. >> finally, the other big news is about the central subway. can you briefly describe the project and give us an update. >> yes, so the central t-line project, another stop at union square that connects directly into powell station and a final stop in the heart of chinatown at stockton and washington. that project has also run into challenges. it's 120' under muni, under bart, 120' down and out under chinatown in some unexpectedly challenging soils. but that project is nearly complete. it's at about 98% completion right now which means we're

testing trains, we're testing the elevators and escalators and the final electronics and we're still on track to open that in october presuming all of the testing continues to go well. so fingers crossed on in a one. we're really looking forward to allowing people to have a subway ride from the heart of chinatown all the way to the convention center to the caltrans station and all the way down to bayview and visitation valley. >> it's great to see all these projects coming to completion. we're all grateful for your team's hard work and i really appreciate you coming on the show, mr. tumlin. thank you for the time you've given us today. >> my pleasure. thanks for having me. >> and that's it for this episode. for sfgov tv i'm chris manors. thanks for watching.

♪♪ >> thank you for coming to the talent dance performance and talent show. [ applause ] >> today's performance and talent show. ♪♪ >> public recreation has every bit of the talent and every bit of the heart and soul of anything that any families are paying ten times for. >> you were

chinatown. >> (music). >> welcome to san francisco historic chinatown a place with a past, present, and future merge with the street culture and cuisine join us as was take you on a journey. san francisco

chinatown is a feeling testament of china's immigrants and arrived in 1950 during the gold rush but hardship built a 35 community that served for generations. today san francisco chinatown is a burtonsville neighborhood brimming with history and culture. one of the highlights of this vibrant is worldwide can i intervene aim first and the oldest. we are known for handmade our claim to fame is our unique food and few places in the world. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> chinatown is a food louvers paradise with a rich engrave and

cuisine. >> back requires and moon contacts and every fine dining. >> welcome to (unintelligible). >> sandy spring /*. >> (speaking foreign language.) whether you're an ad veteran urban forester chinatown has something for everyone. >> chinatown is not just again food also a hub of creativity and take a stroll down the street with murals as culture

exhibitions to celebrate the heritage of this city. >> what the sun sets schoun truly come alive. >> it's night life is old and new a myriad of bars and you can distance the night away with friends. the museums and culture nonprofits play an important role in chinatown to teacher us about the past, present, and future and providing a platform for artist to engage in conversations and welcome to the china's holistic the mission so collect and preserve common council in america any person of my background can see themselves in chinatown for all people. and our founders help to create the studies. and usa with a was an

amazing collector. chinatown center was founded no 1965 an art center for infer served for people for education and the center is an exciting place for dialogue and engage with the actor right now have a exhibition present tense playground that looks the development of chinatown and also with the vast asian with taiwan and honk con. >> welcome to the square a new culture hub celebrating chinatown a gateway tell stories of chinatown the people here the culture and the history and past, present, and future all through arts and culture.

that is a 35 community there is so many to see shopping and buy food and suv inferiors and we welcome, everyone to come in and see what is going on here. >> so whether or not you're a history buff foodie an art person or simply looking for a night of excitement san francisco chinatown has something for you come and explore and experience the heart and the i soil of the private

>> (music). >> hi, i'm emmy the owner of emmy's spaghetti i offers working that with some kind of fine dining and apron and feeling stuffy and in the 90s in san francisco it was pretty pretense in a restaurant in the restaurant scene i want to it have a place to have a place for my friends to guess i started the restaurant a no better place the outer mission spaces were available that's when i opt in two 10 he start with all people and work with them and the events they create one of the

events we do every year and backpack give away and give piaget away and a christmas part with a santa and bring 5 hundred meatballs and pa get and we're like in the mission not about them knowing where the food comes from but a part of the community. and my restaurant emmy's spaghetti and fun banquet and san francisco not the thing that everybody knows about we stay under the radar we show the showcase i take it food and we started to eat we wanted to have comfort food and that a claims friend from i take it and helped

me create meatballs and dealing evolved over the years in the beginning one plate of spaghetti and a meatball we tried to make the portions as big as they could be. and now we have quite a few types pasta dishes with a la begin and meat sauce or have a partition to a lot of food we are at a point with all the favorites i don't change the menu often 0 i eat here so much but everything is fresh your cocktail menu is the best it's ever been one thing on the menu our magazine ghetto we change the flavor one of the fun things

it is served in the historically we're known emmy's spaghetti as a friendly place and when i opened i wanted my friend to be welcome and other parents to be welcomed and it is very for this is a place for families especially in san francisco and this is where though hold their celebration important i mean you're coming to a family restaurant and you're coming for o to a fun place i love being the owner and pretty sure my life i enjoy running the psta spaghetti place i hope to be here a while we'll see how it goes we everyone is a friend we're hoping you'll be a

>> good afternoon and welcome to the february 6, 2024 san francisco board of supervisors meeting. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> thank you mr. president. chan, present. dorsey, present. engardio, present. mandelman, present. melgar, present. peskin, present. preston, present. ronan,