regarding the knowfication period, this is a conversation of 20 to 30 days, san francisco's got a really knowledgeable and engaged civic community. i think this is the third public hearing when talking about gathering public input. that is literally what we're doing right now. so we have always found that the 20-day notification period is absolutely sufficient in order for people to understand what's going on. reach out to elected leaders to appoint planning commissioners to get the details and encourage you to move the legislation forward with the 20-day notification period. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> again, teresa flanderic. above all, it's people having access to information. and as a democracy, we know it can be messy at times. and there can be delays. but for everyone to be notified as to what is going to be

built, my land lady said to me at 94, the first thing you do when you get a 3-11 notice you think of is this going to be good for the community? that is the most important thing. also at that age, she did not have access to internet. and this is what i brought up at the planning commission. that low-income folks, as well as many, many seniors do not have access to internet and that is why i asked again to be sure that it not just be online. but be accessible to everyone. and to continue the mailing until there is another time when more people would be included in getting notifications online. i'm really happy this this includes notices to tenants in all languages. that is so important because, again, it's about participating in democracy. with affordable housing, with 100% affordable housing, i'm

still not 100% of how that is defined. i would like to see clear language in terms of what a.m.i. levels is this only going to be at a higher level, is it going to be inclusive, truly inclusive, from low-income on up. that would be important to me and certainly to the people that i serve and to our community. again, the community involvement in having time to also participate in discussions, not just developers and architects, etc. that would be really nice. so, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jimmy law. a resident of the sunset and native of san franciscan, born and raised here. i'm one of those overly concerned crazy neighbors who pays attention on what's going on and i get all of your notices and i have to say i'm really disappoint because a lot of these notices are regarding

stuff that's trivial and not important to me. for example, lots of notices on pop-ups. i don't know why anyone would care about pop-ups. you know, i have family. i live with my dad and mom and we have to share the house with my sister and her husband and the baby because, you know, it's so expensive here. and sometimes people just need to expand their house sometimes. a pop-up is good and reasonable and a lot of these pop-ups in these application meetings are reasonable so i think, you know what? let city planners do their job and make it easier for them to save two city planners and moves on with everyone's lives because we're in a housing crisis right now. you know, we should be focusing on building 100% affordable housing unfortunately in my district, it is difficult to bill affordable housing. i would be happy if there was 15% affordable housing. unfortunately those projects get killed as well because some neighbors don't like that. and also speaking of which -- which is pretty sad, of course. speaking of which, i'm in big

support of things such as, you know, the building notices. i know some people want it to be dirty. but i feel 20 is a good compromise. because some are 10, some are 20 and some are 30. this notice over here is for construction work. like it's for tending notice. i feel like if it's 30, way too long. 20, good compromise. but in short, you know what? please focus on making things more streamlined and easier for city staffers because they have a lot of work. i'm a busy person, i understand. so, yes. help us build more affordable housing and make things more efficient in city hall because there are things that are taking way too long to get done. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. i haven't been to a meeting in a while. anyway, i'm here for something else. but i had to come up for this.

because i'm really tired of hearing building, building, building that is going to change the housing crisis. when it's not true. how many empty buildings are there being built? how many buildings that have been built that have empty units. we are talking about the white washing of san francisco. we're talking about letting go of people of color and low-income people. i think you need to [inaudible] affordability. somebody came up here and talked about having their

friends and [inaudible]ed not being able to move forward living here. well, there are people with a lot less who are living on the streets and i want to know why we always looking at empty units and units that are being used for airbnb. let's get real. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [applause] >> the public had a grand total of five minutes to speak between the hearing on thursday and the hearing today. this legislation is rushing too fast. it will not hurt you if you separate and send out the 100%

affordable housing piece to the board and keep the rest of it in the committee for another month. [please stand by] [please stand by] >> but i do consider that there

are people who try to take the products -- projects without getting total input of the committee. the 311 process, which is really affected here was a result of prop ten. when it passed, the potty department head over a year of public meetings at their office. to do, what are we going to say is the context? they struggled with it and finally came up with giving notices to 311 and 312. the project process needs to be changed. there should be some discussion of it. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors.

i'm one of the handful of people who regularly gets involved in project opposition and it regularly appears before the planning commission in that capacity. i have a real understanding of the way the neighbourhood -- neighborhood processes work. i want to say that i am a huge fan of the preapplication process. that is where the real work can get got -- done. that is where project sponsors are open to modifications. they haven't put too much money into it and they haven't already gotten the blessing of planning staff, on the residential design team. a preapplication is where it is out. by the time 311 happens, it's frankly, too late and not a lot of good changes are ever made on behalf of neighbors who are inquiring. frankly, it is the enemy of good architecture. what happens is architects come up with great plans and neighbors opposes them and it

gets a planning commission and maybe they are taking into consideration the neighbors input, but what they do is dumbed down the project. the practice of architecture is gone. the thing with these pop outs at the rear, you have to consider our housing stock is aging beyond its intended time limit. that the single family homes in the city, most of them were not built to last 150 years and we are asking them to last 150 years. when a family that has lived in a house for a long time needs to upgrade, section 317 is way to retreat difficult and complicated for them to make major changes. they want to do a pop out. they have to go to 311 and there architect assuage them. next thing you know, they are selling the house, and who can buy it? a developer that will get the cheapest architect they can and do the fastest build they can that is really a bad thing for our neighbors.

we need to encourage architecture in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i live in belmont, south of here. a lot of rich people mod to our area every year and we can't do much about that. but if we don't do -- build housing, they will push out existing residents and people will move down to my town of belmont and push out low income residents in belmont. every you not -- units that we are not adding in san francisco means more displacement in belmont and more track homes in belmont -- in oakland. more families moving to places like arizona and texas were you have to run the air-conditioning 24/7 and not just good public transit and not as good community infrastructure. we should be extremely differential to people who are trying to add housing, especially affordable housing. i think we need to balance a community and we need more notification of new projects against the community need to just -- to prevent displacement.

a notification does you no good if your are forced to leave due to ents r what i've heard a lot in the comments is neighbours have gotten used to blackmailing applicants and delaying their projects. especially zoning compliance projects and they're worried they will lose their ability to do that. neighbors should not be able to block may -- blackmail projects. it should be easy to predict whether the application will succeed or not. that is the number 1 goal of the planning compartment -- department in an application process. we should make it easier to build affordable housing in other parts of the city. especially the sunset in richmond. you cannot add very much affordable housing, i don't think we should move discretionary review online which is one of the proposals. we should make it harder to file discretionary reviews. sat fiscus go handles five times as many discretionary reviews as new york city. a city that is five times larger. we should move this office to

alcatraz and charge $5,000 to file one. thanks very much. >> speaker-01: thank you. any members of the comment to want to -- public who want to comment on item two please come up. is this the correct mic? >> hello my name is norma. i was planning on coming to support this great effort that the planning department and also o. e. w. d. has put together as well as many community members including really talented architects, i was going to come anyway to cheer for the 100% affordable streamlining, but over the weekend, one of my good friends who is a first-generation immigrant like i am, she was telling me that the community where she lives in is in danger of making, the community wants to make accessory dwelling units harder to build and wants to band them

unless a lot size is 6,000 square feet, which sounds big. so, we were talking about the hour of -- i reviews and we told her san francisco was about to make it easier to passa pop outs and make it easier to build them and so i come here on her behalf, in thinking that if we streamline small projects here, perhaps other communities can get some ideas and feel inspired and help you become, you know, a source of evidence that this stuff works and it provides much needed housing and get help a lot of immigrant communities who do not have a lot of existing wealth to continue to stay in the high cost, high employment areas like san francisco. thank you so much. >> thank you so much. any members of the public who wish to comment on item two please come up before we pollute -- closed public comment. seeing done, public comment is closed. i want to thank everyone who came out to speak on this item.

a lot of it is likes to the legislation that i also introduced around accessory dwelling units and the overarching goal of streamlining the process and making it easier for families, property owners to be able to accommodate to, again, whether it's additional generational -- intergenerational living, seniors, it's a much more affordable way than to buy another home or if someone is facing a high rent as a tenant, really, we hope this can be a solution. a couple things i heard during public comments that i want to address. one is that early on i heard that there was a concern around demolition of homes, and then somehow that getting swept up with some of the aid to use and the pop outs. one of the things that was noted in the planning commission that i heard clara fired was that there is a conditional use permit process that a project

sponsor has to go through first if there was a demolition that were to occur. we have pretty strong demolition controls in san francisco at i want to throw it over to the planning department or our mayors office to confirm that. >> that is correct. demolitions require authorization from the planning commission. with that demolition, a sponsor would have to present what they are proposing to rebuild in that case as well. >> in that case, that would involve neighborhood notification at all that. if that -- if there was a proposed demolition. >> that's right. we would need a newspaper notice and we are proposing it would go to an online notice add a posted notice. >> okay. that would be different, additional changes to our current demolition notification process? >> no. that is our current process and it would continue. >> okay. ok, great. that was one issue i heard around demolition. the other thing has to do with the fact that we are here today

with legislation amending the planning code. i think i see representatives year from the department of building inspection but i want to clarify what sort of notification would be involved for our so called pop outs that we are talking about and that it has become quite controversial somehow. there is notification, i believe from d.b.i. can you explain what that actually is? >> supervisor, i am from d.b.i. that is correct. we would normally notify the adjacent neighbours and the one behind and that would include the appeal window, 15 days from the permit issued. >> okay. that appeal goes to which body? >> to the board of appeals. >> okay. even if we were to make the change today to the planning code, d.b.i. would still continue his neighbourhood notification and appeal process for pop outs? >> that is correct. >> thank you. ok. >> thank you. i like the thought behind 100%

affordable projects. i like the thought behind downtown historic. i definitely want to spend time talking about, and then -- putting a uniform notification process for the number of days. something we've been talking about with planning for over a year. i am happy to see this move forward. i like one of the commenters. it is true. the preapplication is the part where the majority of the work is done, and if it is done correctly, that is when it should happen. it is -- if there is a requirement in this the talks about the preapplication process. that is my first question. >> thank you. i am with the planning department staff. right now, anything that requires 311 or 312 notification also requires a preapplication meeting. that is a way that things where it is. >> with that remain under this

proposal? >> if the ordinance were to pass as currently written, the popout would not require notification so there would be no meeting. however,, the commission did recommend there should be a preapplication meeting for the pop outs if there were no notification. they didn't alternately make that recommendation formally, because instead they recommended they keep notice for the pop outs. however, it would be possible to do the preapplication meeting through a commission policy. >> when you say notice for the pop outs, what did they recommend? >> they recommended they should continue to have 311. >> okay. i don't agree with that but i do believe that i mean if we are good to move something forward today, we should say there would be a required preapplication, and then i do believe the immediate neighbour -- neighbors and similar to what happens in d.b.i. for appeal, and then the lot right behind you, should be noticed. so is that in the current form

of this legislation? so it is still 311? >> that's right. the preapplication meeting is a commission policy. what we would do is return to the commission to advise them as to what the board amendments where and they can establish in their policy that preapplication meeting should be required for the popout. >> right. i would do a hybrid of the two. i think there definitely should be a preapplication. that should be a requirement if we are going to do over-the-counter for pop outs. i believe that more than just a postcard and something online. if you are an immediate neighbors in the lot behind a property that is getting a popout, you should get a full set of plans and have the opportunity, whether it is certified mail, or something, to know that neighbour -- that neighbors and the lot behind has received the plans as proposed. >> that's right. currently with a preapplication materials, what is sent would not be change for this ordinance. >> the preapplication would include the immediate neighbors

in the lot behind. >> that's right. and the plants for the project. >> and the full plans. if we want to have a requirement for p. application, it would covered the things i just talked about. >> it would be up to the planning commission to adopt that policy. they expressed of notification were to go away that that would be their preference. >> that would be my preference today. >> thank you. i'm a little confused because maybe planning staff or even d.b.i. can clarified that the preapplication meeting, that is a particular set of notification that d.b.i., similar to what d.b.i. spoke of, right? or is it the same thing. >> it is similar staying in that it is a jason neighbors but it is a different process. it requires preapplication meetings as a first thing before we can take the permit. test to be two weeks before we receive the permit and then there is a 311 notification period. it is only mailed out what's a planner has determined the project is code compliant. after the vote building permit has been signed off on by the planning department, that is when the notification from d.b.i. comes out to the adjacent neighbors.

>> great. and so, i appreciate that clarification because i think my preference is that yes, there is still some level of notification to the neighbors if he had their preapplication process, but not to the full on 311. neighbors would still have the ability to appeal the d.b.i. permit to the board of permit appeals, but you are allowing that window of timer a project sponsor to be able to, you know, do the process a little quicker and easier. again, still keeping in mind that our existing demolition control is applied and so forth and so there is still a process for that. >> right. >> just to finish that thought, i mean, for me, it is really important -- the people that are the most impacted by a popout are the two immediate neighbors and in the lot behind, if there is a lot. i think that requiring preapplication which would cover all of those things is the appropriate way to step forward. it also accomplishes, similar to what we introduced with 312

reform where we are reducing staff time. we are really allowing folks to focus on some of these larger missions in the city which is affordable housing and getting more units online to deal with the overall demand in the city and reduce staff time overall. at the same time, respecting the interests and the desires of the neighbors. if we were to make that recommendation today, it would go back to the planning commission. >> yes. the ordinance would not have to return to the planning commission, because everything that is before -- >> it was ready considered. >> we could make the amendment to say that neighborhood notification would be required for pop out. >> the planning staff would recommend you include that in your resolution urging the planning commission to adopt that policy rather than instituting this in the codes because a preapplication meetings are not something that are set forth in the code. >> we would have to do a separate resolution? >> as part of your resolution on this ordinance.

i just mean, as opposed to an actual amendment within the ordinance. >> maybe the way to do that would be to add in on codified section at the end of the ordinance urging the planning commission. >> got it. we could make an amendment today that would say, for pop outs, that we would require preapplication process, and then add the end of the ordinance, that there would be, urging this to become part of the planning commission's -- >> the full amendment would be and on codified section urging the planning commission, when it considers as policy, to require preapplication process for the pop outs. not to amend section 311 to say that specifically. >> right. i think that's right. okay. but we don't have any language, right now as proposed from what

i am saying? >> it is not currently in the ordinance because we would direct the commission through your resolution language, that's right. >> we can amend this today? >> that's right. >> to require preapplication and remove 311 notification. >> that removal of 311 is already in the audience -- ordinance. >> what we can add it? >> yeah. >> thank you. supervisor kim? >> i also have a set of amendments that i want to introduce. they are substantive and must go back to the planning commission. i must implicate the file to put these amendments into the adjudicated file. i have distributed amendments to committee members and also to city attorney john gibbon or. this is around amendments to the permit to alter a certificate of appropriateness process. it is to add, with ending -- within planning code section 10052 add each to the code at

ages 65 through 67. notwithstanding the foregoing signs, camaros and exterior paint to install an event or anniversary of an event of national or international significance, relevant to the historic context of the landmark or district regardless of the size, should not be subject to the provision of the subject. this is aligned in section 1006.6. i want to add to planning code section one 11.12 add subsection d. and page 67, 68 that notwithstanding the foregoing, science, mirrors and exterior paint same contacts should not be subject to the provisions as long as they follow the rules. this is in regard to something previous to my time in office, but in my district which was a mural that was put up at the

theatre, at the plaza. and this is to ensure that that signage gets to continue to stay in place. we also want to him and into planning code section, and this is a question for the city attorney in terms of where it is appropriately placed, the science of any size and celebration of an event et cetera et cetera, where it is located. i will make a motion to keep the file and amend the duplicated file so that it can return to planning to be heard by the planning commission. >> thank you. john get better? >> thank you. there are a few issues that my office has looked into with this set of amendments, including where to put it and some other issues that i'm discussing with your office. i would recommend, today, you duplicate the file as you

suggested so we can work out some language and discuss further with your office. after the committee makes an amendment next week, it would then be referred back to planning. >> okay. that makes sense. we will work with your office over the next week to do that. i just had a follow-up question for the popout and this was a question or a statement made by members of the public which was that often thieves popout spoke her with a larger housing buildout. my understanding is that, in that case, you know, other notifications and processes would be triggered along with the popout. i just want to get verification of that. >> that is correct. if you are proposing a project that is larger than the popout, it triggers a section 311 notice. the architects brought up that if their clients know they have to do notice, they will propose a larger project because they

have to. our hope is that by making pop outs over-the-counter, it will guide people to do it in a more reasonable way instead of going to be a jerk -- bigger projects that require notice. >> is there any reason for members of the public to be concerned about the popout in and of itself going over-the-counter in a blue of a larger project that the project sponsor is actually considering? >> there is concern about that. we have discussed another amendment to address the concern that someone could propose the monster house situation and try to add a popout in addition to that to exceed the monster has limitations. so we have prepared an amendment that would say that you cannot add a popout within three years of another expansion. >> i see. >> if you do, it would require notice. >> even after the three years or

within the first three years? >> within the first three years. >> what can we do beyond that? i imagine that neighbors and members of the public would have concerns beyond, you know, the envelope of the monster home project beyond three years. >> the three year proposal would be to deal with that cereal rmitpeng potential to make it difficult or very unlikely for someone to want to hold off on doing their main project for a period of three years so they can try to take advantage of the regulations. in terms of whether or not neighbors would have concerns about the popout, we've heard the concerns at the planning commission. the staff analysis, because the pop outs themselves are compatible with the residential design guideline, and because they are almost, in every case, approved without getting a discretionary review and they do come to the planning commission, they are infrequently modified. we feel the popout footprint itself is quite appropriate to be with over-the-counter approval for those reasons. the cereal permitting issue would be dealt with through the -- dealt with through the three

year proposal. >> in general, what is a scope in terms of the number of simple popout applications of the planning department gets in an average year? >> we believe we are getting 250 applications that have that scope of work in them. most of those have other work as well. as he mentioned the guidance that we have gotten from architects and from our staff that has been with the department for a a while is they have heard from sponsors that if they had known there was the ability to go without the, you know, lengthy process, they would have done something smaller. in addition, windows and larger projects come to us. we tend to whittle them down for the design review process is something close to what the popout is because it does match the residential design guideline. in other words, many of those application start with something larger and they end with something as close to the popout by virtue of what we're doing at the planning department when they come in. having them over-the-counter, they would sit within that small envelope. >> thank you for those

clarification pieces. the other thing that was brought up is around the 20 versus 30 day notice. i am looking at this chart that shows all the different current requirements for the mailing period for all sorts of different notifications, 311, 312, conditional use, you name it. for the map -- for the vast majority, and i see why the legislation proposed 20 days versus 30 is that most of them are 20 days. in fact,, i count only one, to walk, three, rougher on this page here that again, represent the typical types of notification that people would receive a 30 days. the vast majority are 20 days. that there is a whole bunch that would have required ten day notice that would be going to 20 days. it would be increased. this is something we are agreeing with the original legislation which is to go to the 20 day notice uniformly instead. so i guess that is a

recommendation that i don't plan on taking from the planning commission. >> with that said, are there any further cup questions or comments? i would say that amongst the different amendments that i see, i want to preserve the pop outs. that is very important. but to have the notification, the neighborhood notification required, and specifically, that is the 311 notification if there was an existing structure that was expanded in the prior three years, to prevent cereal permitting as the planning department mentioned. and then, i know the supervisor spoke about talking about directing the planning commission to adopt the policy for the section 136 pop outs to require a preapplication meeting between the applicant and adjacent neighbours before a rear yard addition can be submitted. i would like to include that provision as well. i'm willing to take a couple

recommendations from the planning commission, which is recommendation number 2. amending section 333 to allow the zoning administrator to determine the requirements for posted notice for unique sights. the recommendation number 3, in the same section, to require the posted notice to be visible and legible from the sidewalk or a nearest public right of way. a recommendation number for all that is also in the same section 333 to require a mailed notice with minimum dimensions of five and a half by eight and a half inches. that is half a sheet. and the last one is to amend the same section to require notification procedures to be consistent with applicable planning commission policy. so, again, to reiterate, i would like to take planning commission recommendations two, three, rougher and seven. to do the preapplication meetings and require 311 notification for pop outs where the existing structure would extend in the prior three years.

>> colleagues? questions? thoughts? i would like to make a motion for those effects. >> can you read the last one? you lapped read it pretty quickly. you want just to keep 311 for pop outs? >> for when the existing structure has been modified in the last three years and that is to prevent cereal permitting and scope creep. >> do you have those amendments? you said you had them. here they are. okay. >> for clarity, the item was duplicated in the amendment draw for the original? >> that is correct. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> deputy city attorney. it would be cleaner if you amended both the duplicate and the original so we have consistency. >> yes. i would like to make those amendments to both versions, then.

>> so that captured the requirement for preapplication. >> yes. >> okay. >> i have that in there and i have the request too -- well, to keep the 20 day noticing so we don't have to make an amendment, actually. >> i'm fine with that. i will make that motion. >> okay. we will do that without objection, then. okay? both files were amended to that effect. >> and then do we accept your amendments? >> yes. did we? for the duplicated version? >> she is just touching them.

>> on the duplicated version around signage, i think there is a motion from supervisor kim for those amendments, sorry. >> yes. that set of amendments would be adopted next week. you are just continuing that last item. >> i did want to comments that there was a mention about continuing that portion to the july 18th and next land use committee meeting but it will be cancelled because of the budget hearing. it would be july 25th. is that okay? i mean june 25th. we have a few meetings before recess. up to you. depending on the schedule. but i wanted you to know there is no june 18th meetings. >> it could be june 25th or if you would like another date, that is fine. i know central soma plan is on the docket for june 25th and i imagine it will be a fairly lengthy item.

and so, i'm happy to hear both. i would suggest maybe hearing it at the next land use meeting after june 25th. >> okay. >> that would be my suggestion. >> july 2nd? >> july 9th because july 2nd, it is also cancelled because of the 4th of july holiday. is that okay? >> yes. >> july 9th, then. okay. we will continue item number 2 to monday, july 9th. >> okay. >> all right? we can do that without objection, then? >> okay. >> without objection? >> yes. >> all right. okay, great. i think then on the amended version before us today, if we can get a motion on that item. >> so, to make a motion to send the amended version with positive recommendation. are we doing the committee report? >> no just regular. >> positive recommendation from the full board. >> we will do that without

objection. thank you very much. before we hop into item three, i wanted to let you know that supervisor he will be filling in for me for item three. supervisor kim will be sharing rest of the meeting on my behalf. madame clerk, canu call item three? >> yes, it is an ordinance amending the planning code to designate 234 through 231s 231st street, a.k.a. south building as a landmark, and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you very much. i am the author of this item. the landmark designation. i see our planning department up to present on this item. >> may i have the overhead, please? good afternoon. i am here today to present the preservation commission's recommendation for landmark

designation of the phillips building located at 234 to 461st street in selma. the building is listed as an article 11 category one significant building. in january 2017, the hbc approved a major permit to alt alter, as well as a condition to designate the phillips building as a landmark. the landmark designation was approved in november 2017. h.p.c. commissioners conducted a site visit in 2017 and they initiated landmark designation the same day. on march 7th, 2018, the h.p.c. unanimously recommended landmark designation. the phillips building was constructed in 1930 to have the new printing business at the phillips company which occupied the building until 1947. the five-story building is

significant as a distinctive and highly intact example of art deco style and is a considerably rare style in san francisco. it is also the largest art deco style loft building in the city. the phillips building is also significant for it's association with master architect henry h. myers. prominent local architect to design buildings throughout the bay area including memorial buildings. the phillips building is a rare example of their work, commercial work. character defining interior features include the elevator lobby and former display show room. these places are eligible for designation because they were historically publicly accessible. there is no known public art or neighborhood opposition to designation as a landmark and the owners are supportive of landmark designation. the department believes the building me see established eligibility requirements and

landmark status. the h.p.c. recommends landmark designation to the board of supervisors. this concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions. the property owners representatives are here today to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. i think we... yes, thank you so much. at this time, we will open up for public comment on item number 3. public comment is no -- now closed. so colleagues, no questions or comments from community members, i would like to make a motion to move item number 3 forward with a recommendation. >> would you like to excuse the supervisor or supervisor from the rest of the meeting? >> yes. let's excuse her. do we second? yes, we can do that without

objection. thank you. can we take a motion to move item number 3 forward to the full board with recommendation. we have a motion. no objections. we can move forward at number 3 with no objections. can you please call item number 4. >> yes, it is the resolution between flood avenue and ocean avenue. >> thank you. the sponsor of this item is here today. i will handed over to him for introductory remarks. thank you. >> sure. thank you. colleagues, back in april, i introduced a resolution in anticipation of the asia pacific american heritage month in may. given the anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric and policies eminent -- emanating from washington, dc, which has led to increase -- increased acts of intolerance towards immigrant communities. there has been an increased

effort from communities, locally and nationally, to remove names from public statues in places which honour figures who expose racism. there has also been an increased movement nationall and globally to recognize women's historical contributions and their role in our current professional, and public settings. we have successful local examples of this, such as supervisors legislation to rename columbus day to indigenous peoples day. supervisor peskin's legislation to remove justin herman's name from the plaza. students from the university of san francisco rename to the campus building. not only has our country's consciousness been raised to acknowledge the importance of

contributions from historically marginalized communities. people of colour, particularly women of colour, and the disabled communities. we know our history in order not to repeat mistakes in our past. that is why today, we are hearing my resolution to rename it to freda kahlo way and remove the name post as a racist legacy. he served as a san francisco mayor from 1897-2,002 and was the senator from 2015 -- 1915-1921. he supported the chinese exclusion act of 1882 and to the immigration act of 1924. banning chinese and japanese immigrants. he ran his senatorial campaign

on the motto to keep california weight and save our state from oriental aggression. i want to read from you the interview frida kahlo -- when he talks about the silent invasion of japanese workers into california. quote, at the california is a white man's country. and the two races cannot live side-by-side in peace. as much as we discover the country first and occupied -- and occupied it, we propose to hold it against either a peaceful or warlike invasion. as soon as japanese people are kicked out of the country, there will be danger of irritating these sensitive and aggressive people. they must be excluded, because they are nonassimilable.

they are a permanently foreign elements. they do not spring families and they do not perched -- support churches, schools or theatres. in time, they will not fight for uncle sam but betray him as the enemy. these are a few of the types of remarks that you made during that time. so, he also supported legislation to make interracial marriage between asian and caucasians illegal. the street was named phelan avenue as early as 19 '06 and though the street name was supposedly named after his wethy real estate broker, the younger man's anti- immigration policy besmirched his father's name.

the street may not have been named after his father if his son had not been just finishing his may oral term. the younger james phelan and his racist views are the most widely associated with the lane. the renaming processes have not undergone as extensive a community process as my office has conducted. i outraged to archbishop riordan high school to the principal, and two city college last year, reaching out to them and expressing my intentions. at the time, the principal at archbishop, when i told him he went back to check and he came back to me and said, this should not be a major problem though they would have to change their letterhead. at the time, i was also told you don't have to worry about that for at least five years. my office then proceeded to door and knock and scent letters last

fall to all the residence up and down the street. and eventually inviting community members to rejoin my renaming committee. residents participated and restart listed five names which went out to vote. at a time when i wanted to rename phelan, i had no particular name in mind except i wanted to raise an issue, a historical mistake of saying this is not what we want today, and we will find a better name. so, after the devoting -- by the way, it is a process that is not etched in stone where you have to have a vote at all. i mean, i just chose it to get input from the community, as much as i could. but frida kahlo, another women of color was a name that received the greatest support. the street renaming process

would happen over a five-year period. there is ample time for neighbors to update to the documents. we had a similar street naming in a much larger streets many, many years ago, and the same process took place when it was harvey streets that was changed to cesar chavez boulevard. again, there was controversy. people are not comfortable with changes, at this point, nobody was saying, let's change it back because that's what it was. it is a part of history that we all know about, and we need to take this opportunity to learn about history, really be a learning moment for all of us to say, what is it that we want to have to reflect our current values? san francisco is a city that prides itself on values of inclusion, tolerance, and

respect for multicultural diversity. we will not tolerate exclusion, racism and hatred in our communities. i want to thank my sponsors and colleagues who work with me on this, and colleagues, i look orward to your support. i wanted to thank the community members today for coming to speak and i know that there are several of them out there. why don't i and with that and see -- i think there is also somebody, before i bring up the public, i would like to ask th them, jeremy from the government affairs from public works department, to lay out, you know, what the process really is so we all understand it. jeremy? >> thank you. thank you supervisors. my name is jeremy. a public works of legislative affairs.

supervisors calculate up the process fairly well, essentially when a street name changes proposed, public works goes through a process to contact city departments and also the property owners to let them know of the intentions. we reached out to relevant city agencies including the department of emergency management and fire department and others and receive no objections. we reached out to the fronting property owners on phelan and 23 fronting properties, we received rejections from seven which is less than 50%. public works recommends moving forward with a proposed name change. as we alluded to, the process going forward is essentially the m.t.a. would be asked to install street name signs that have frida kahlo way in large letters and phelan in small letters up for five years after which it would be replaced with frida kahlo way. i am available for any questions.

>> any questions about this? okay. for your information, i have been in communication with city assessors, for the owners of the property, they need to eventually change their date of trust to reflect the new name. she indicated she is more than willing to help the process as much as possible to make it as convenient as possible. so, maybe right now, if there are no questions, i would like to take public comment. is that a quake? >> we will open it up for public comment on this item. >> i have a bunch of cards here. >> i'm so sorry. why don't we call up the speaker cards first.

>> i have other cards so i will call you as soon as we dwindled down the line. >> well, this first speaker please come up? >> deborah fitzpatrick. >> good afternoon. first, i would like to say that i've been a resident for 30 years on phelan avenue. i was interested -- i was interested when you say that he claims that he only received seven notices. the gentleman before. he said out of 20 residents, that declined, i never received a notice. all i received was, after the fact, the names listed that have already been listed. and names that where, when was frida kahlo. that was a first notice i ever

received. so i would just like to say that. i would like to say that i, as a hispanic woman, i admire frida kahlo pastas message through her artwork. but doi want a street that i live on named after her? no i do not. first, i feel that this has been a huge marketing ploy. because of the fact that they have a diego rivera theatre, i feel that frida kahlo's name has come up because to me, it sounds like an advertisement. it has been -- i read that city college has proposed a construction for a multimillion dollar arts centre named after diego rivera as well. which would combine her name and therefore that is why they would like frida kahlo pastas name listed on the streets. it has nothing to do with

phelan's name. this is how i feel. however,, my problem is here that you are changing one name that you are saying is racist to another person who has a very controversial background. freda calo -- frida kahlo is a proponent of communism -- >> thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> i have been at 221 phelan for over 35 years. i am very happy. all the people there are very nice and very helpful. one thing i noticed, this city,

whenever you sent a notice, you remember the seniors. most of the seniors don't have internet. when you said that you shared the name, i would like to have the history of phelan, the history of frida kahlo. so we understand who they are, and why you want to change the name. my question is, is this a business issue? or is it a background issue? so today, the first time i hear that you talk about the history of phelan, and you talk a little bit about frida kahlo. my thinking is i wish that i understand the name.

we have been there for a long time and we have been very happy and we wish that we live in peace under the phelan name. as i say, i oppose to change the name. let us live in peace. because the change of name would create a big stress for all of us. thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm the president of archbishop riordan high school. the high school serves a truly diverse population of students. on behalf of the students and over 50 residents who live the there, i wish to let the record show that our community takes issue with the process for how our street name is being

changed, and we are opposed to any name changing without a fair process being put in place. the reason for why the street name is being changed is dishonest. more importantly, the voting process was arbitrary, unfair and biased towards the city college. arbitrary in that waiting was unevenly distributed among stakeholder groups. unfair in that our supervisor failed to explain the process and did next to nothing to inform riordan and inform residents about where the process was taking place. no explanation of the weighting was given. this process was biased towards city college because their representatives were the only ones who knew the details of the process of the march 2nd meeting that i called to gather information from phelan residents and the city college representatives. when i asked if they knew about the process or how to vote, not a single one of the nine of 17

residents present knew how to vote. this is a serious error in process. i asked the board of supervisors to have some oversight over these matters that violate the rights of the city citizens to a fair voting process. i have 11 of 17 letters signed by residents rejecting the changing of the name of phelan avenue. that is a majority of 40% of the overall voting weighting according to the process. with my vote against, on behalf of the high school which constitutes ten%, that makes 50% opposed to the renaming and i plead with you to route vies the voting process with oversight. [applause] >> afternoon. my name is bonnie wight and i live at 326 phelan avenue. the only meeting that we were invited to was a meeting of the renaming comte