and goals relating to housing production including general plan policies 1.1, 1.10, 4.1 and 4.4. and mapp 2020 categories for, objective three and solution one h. this project is not required by code to provide any p.d.r. yet it provides p.d.r. replacement instead of ground floor retail and retains the existing mission base p.d.r. business in a brand-new space and pays for temporary relocation while the building is being constructed. this makes -- this means a project is zero displacement p.d.r. meaning and overarching goal in the city wide policy of industrial protection and industrial job protection. the project will be named to the fitzgerald in honor of the company. this retention furthers missionary plan objectives 1.1,

1.7 and 6.1 and policies 1.1.2, 1.2.2 and 6.1.3. as well as map 2020, objective 1.7 and solution 60, 11 e. and 12 v. taking a step back, those are two elements of a wide-ranging community benefits package that has grown significantly since the project was first proposed in 2014. in direct response to feedback from members of the community. the project included 45 car parking spaces, stair on site affordability and market rate retail space. it did not have a local hire program or incorporate local artwork. the fitzgerald was going to voluntarily relocate to a more modern facility elsewhere. a sponsor increased affordability twice. first committing to on site and then voluntary exceeding the minimum requirement. retail was eliminated and replaced with p.d.r. with the

existing tenant set to reoccupy the space. the project to reduce parking by nearly half, to 24 spaces and added a signature mural opportunity to be designed by local artists and committed to a binding local higher program with 50% l.b.e. and worked with local schools to provide resources for an existing work-study program. all of these general plan goals were identified. finally, the project p.d.r. programming and on site affordable housing compare favourably with past mission projects approved by the planning commission. with relatively high on site affordability and significantly more p.d.r. space. in particular when compared with similarly sized projects. if you like, i can provide more detail. in conclusion, although the project cannot meet all of the current demands, its voluntary

community benefits program is comprehensive. while still allowing a project to be financed and constructed. actually delivering housing units and ground-floor p.d.r. there is ample evidence in front of you that the planning commission's decision to approve the project is currently proposed and well within its discretion. we ask you to confirm that the commission did not air or abuse its discretion and respectfully deny this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. mr sanchez? >> thank you. the project initially started in june of 2014 with the submittal of the preliminary project assessment or ppa. subsequently the environmental application was filed as well as the development application.

through the course of the design review process, it did change in scope. initially when the large project authorization was submitted, they were seeking five exceptions. the project is finally reviewed by the planning commission sought two for that rearview yard and one for exposure. during the process, there were multiple hearings of the planning commission and there were about seven continuances from the planning commission hearings over the course of the time and in about eight months. it was pending before the planning commission but the project as meet and exceed the affordable housing requirements. in regards to the concerns raised by the appellants and the project not complying with the mission area plan, it is important to note, under state law, each city is required to maintain a general plan. under state law,, the general plan is to be seen as a document of the goals to be implemented

for development in a municipality. the general plan is to be vertically consistent. from that flow, the regulations must be in compliance with the general plan. you can't have a consistency where the codes are different from what the general plan calls for. the general plan is the governing document. in this case, the general plan element here, did call for heightened affordability as the appellant's attorney noted, that was implemented through planning code section 419. they are in compliance with the policies of the missionary plan because they are in compliance and art exceeding the requirements of section 419. generally we had affordability requirements of 12% back in the day. it has increased but under 419, it was a 16% based. it was a higher level. there are three different tears.

tier a is properties that had little or no change in their development potential in terms of height. b. is more moderate increase that was allowed by the rezoning and see is even more. this was tier b. and it's rate his for 19. we have had props proxy and increases in improvements to affordability requirements. under the grand father learning -- under the grandfather rules, it stepped up to 17 and a half%. that would be the base code requirement in compliance with the general plan for the property as noted by the project sponsor's attorney. they have increased it voluntarily to 20%. it is an additional unit they are providing through this process in excess of what is required under the code to be in compliance with the general plan there is no requirement for p.d.r. replacement for the subject property. they are doing so at nearly a 1- 1 rate.

it does require replacement. but this does not meet the threshold that would trigger that requirement for replacement they are complying and going beyond what would be required under the code. those were the points i wanted to raise. i am happy to be available for questions. in addition to this appeal, there is also subject to an appeal of the environmental review to the board of supervisors. they denied that appeal. with that, i am available for any questions. >> it seems that the key focus here is on the p.d.r. if the fitzgerald company does not move back in, then rather then setting it off into the big wild world, that it be available at a good rate to a local

community concern. is there a precedent for that direction, or is it past practice that it is up to the discretion of the owner to do what the owner feels is just for them? >> there is nothing in the planning code. there is nothing in the planning code that requires this to be p.d.r. there will be nothing in the code that will require the property owner to rent to the p.d.r. space at a below market rate to other tenants. that is something that they would have to voluntarily be willing to do. it is not something we could impose through the planning code >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. how many people are here for public comment?

do we want to go two? if you could line up against the wall, please and be prepared to fill out a speaker cartridge. we are onto public comments. if you can come forward and line up against the wall. given the relatively large number of public commenters, public comment will be limited to two minutes. >> first person, don't be shy. come on up. >> you can start speaking and give the card after. >> first speaker, please. >> you can move forward. it is okay. thank you. >> good evening. i need to take off my glasses to reach. i am with fitzgerald furniture company and i am a family owned business that has been in san

francisco for over 60 years but we have been at our existing residence, building since 1984. we initially planned to move but the project sponsor made some changes to switch the ground floor to p.d.r. so that we can stay. we have reviewed a couple of times with them for our specifications and they have made changes upon what we want to. there is zero evictions in this. it is only me. and there is no tenant -- they are helping us with the tenant relocation. they have been really helpful. we have every intention staying in business for however long we can all last and be alive and hopefully our family incomes and follows in the process. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> it is cool they are naming the building the fitzgerald.

>> the business was founded by my dad and uncle. it is all cool because it is all the same blood. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. thank you for your time. i am a member of the family who owns the fitzgerald company. in 1953, my father and his uncle jack bought the defunct upholstery and the drapery division at wj sloan. the location of the shop moved a few times, ending at 2,820th street. our family is excited that the business is to be relocated back to the new development once the building is done and they backed

our family business. i think it is great that the brick façade will be retained to honor the history of the site. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners , commissioners. good evening. i want to speak on low income housing below the mission district of district nine in district ten. we would like to see the discretion overturned because this project does not meet the mission area plan required by a super inclusionary affordable units above and beyond the city 's inclusionary plan. i am one of the founders of our mission and omission. >> into the microphone, sir, please. >> i'm one of the founders and we have been at it for five years. and there are 10,000 families that have been wronged in this neighborhood. >> are you part --

>> due to the evictions, wrongful eviction. >> are you an officer? or just a member? >> just a member. i have been at this -- i have been in this neighborhood for 25 years now and been at it ever since. this 8,000 latino families. we are above market rate. we are way above, but the low income is not there. how will we ever get there we this has been on the books already for two and a half years if you can't afford it, he should move on to let someone else come build it. he should uphold his appeal. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. as john mentioned, we are in an advanced stage of gentrification , particularly in the mission district. there are a lot of reasons why

that is happening right now in one of those reasons is a lot of these residents are finding it very difficult to find jobs that will support them and the increased housing burden that they are finding every day. part of that is having good blue-collar working jobs to enable them to pay the rent despite the increases they are facing in the rent burdens they are confronted with. for that reason alone, it is imperative that the current space continues to house a community-based working class business that is p.d.r. that is something educational that will enable them to continue to work and thrive and live within, not only san francisco, but the mission community. the sponsor refuses to extend the same terms to p.d.r. business and events that they are not complete the term of the 20 year lease. the communities asking for nothing more than for these same terms to be extended to the community to ensure this critical site remains a business with working-class jobs in the

event that this business may close a lot sooner than expected during the hearings, a big sticking point was whether or not three dollars was a below market rate price to offer. the commissioners ask for the date on the market right in order to make an informed decision. there wasn't one that was readily available. but yet, the appellants have shown that a memorandum dated the 8th of january of this year with san francisco office of oewd said that two dollars a square foot is the average b.m.r. right for p.d.r. what we are asking for is that an error was made and this be sent back to as the commissioners so they can have the data they need and make the decision that they wouldn't be able to make had they been in -- had they been informed. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> thank you. i'm the secretary of the redstone labor temple association. the tenants association of the red stone building in the mission. it is a historic building that has been there since -- was at the centre of the general strike we have been organizing to stop displacement in the mission and it strikes me that the developer has offered to add only one below market rate unit at 150% of average median income. as it was alluded to earlier, 150% of average median income is above moderate income housing. it does not meet the requirements of mission area plan objective 2.1.

and 150% average median income is unavoidable. in the housing crisis is hitting poor and moderate residents hardest and offering one unit that would be affordable to poor working people. i find it not very inspiring and i think we need more units for poor and working people and not high end luxury condos. this is market rate in essence. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello my name is marie. i am with our mission, no eviction. and the project sponsor has really refused to work with the community and trying to come up

with this plan. it's pretty much they tell us what they're going to do. it sounds like m.t.a. and we try to work with people when they are going to build these huge monstrosities and we have a lot of success in going back and forth and coming to agreements in order to help the community and not make such a big negative impact because you are bringing in -- they say market rate, they are essentially market units. so it was just sad -- it is said that the project sponsor has really blown the community off. i think it's ridiculous that this plan is going through the

mission -- the mission need so much more than this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, commissioners. this facility, at the moment is in need of upgrade and we appreciate that the project sponsors are going to upgrade this facility and we can move back into this space with updated facilities. plus this building has everything that everybody wants. it has street parking and it has low income housing and it has p.d.r. thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> is there any other public comment? is there anyone else besides this gentleman? can you come up here, cirque we go ahead. >> good evening. i am with the mission economic development agency. i want to talk specifically to a

few points and most of all, that in the context of the extreme crisis that you are hearing more about and i know you're all very familiar with, and frankly we have been working on very -- many levels very hard. when we see a project come along that is not doing its part in the same kind of way that we feel that they can, we are going to stay on these details. to clarify something, no one said anything but there was an error. that is the main point of why this is here before you today. this is not -- these agreements are common in the mission. so common that as you heard the quote from the from president telus from the planning commission say they rely on these mo used to make non gentrifying outcomes. that is why that commission scent to this project back two times and said go make a fair community agreement with community organizations.

when it was passed, there was information provided by this project sponsor that p.d.r. space, a critical part of this. we are losing our blue-collar jobs and a blue-collar space in a way that is not acceptable. it is driving out our families. that is not correct information. three dollars a square foot. they are clear it is not the right price and the market comparables provided by the mission no eviction show this is not a subsidized price. so please view this in the context of this error. this is something you can fix. it seems very fixable overall. how do we get to a place where there is some affordable housing added on. how did we get to a place where we are fixing the p.d.r. to make sure we have a blue-collar space that can offer unskilled and semiskilled jobs. thank you. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon. i am a native of san francisco's mission district. 10,000 people have been evicted from the mission. we are at ground zero in san francisco. we have a crisis in our neighborhood. what the fitzgerald family didn't tell you is they own the property and they were going to develop this project. but i went to the first community meeting and they met them all and i talk to them about building future housing and a lot of affordable housing. they landed up selling the property to a developer. we know in the mission, what developers do. they make all these promises and at the end of the day they do whatever they want. i could sit here and give you an example after example. as a native of san francisco, i have seen kilpatrick's bakery,, hostess bakery, peter factories,

lumber factories, all these different companies in the mission district disappear. what have we gotten? luxury and luxury. we are the number 1 neighborhood that has had more luxury developed in our neighborhood than any other neighborhood. my father worked for a heater factory on 20th and florida. that is no a luxury -- eight luxury units. the p.d.r. space will disappear if the fitzgerald his don't come back. i don't trust them. because they saw -- they sold the property. i think what is most important is the planning department just came out with a report. i will just read the end of the report. it says that building more luxury units is not the answer. we have failed. just building more housing.

in the mission, there has been a loss of 606 affordable units. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners. i am a current resident in san francisco. i work for a community program that is a nonprofit community program in the fillmore and i think, personally this project is offering ample community benefits that go above and beyond what is required of them. all of the benefits that this project is doing relate to the mission action plan and our city is in need of housing in this project should be delayed any longer than it already has. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is jury johnson. i grew up in san francisco. i went through a program similar to the one the project sponsor

is providing and mission high school as part of their community benefit for this project. during my time at the university of california, i had a part-time professor that worked for forbes magazine. they prevented the top factors for college graduates. those two factors were a relevant mentorship and mentorship in a career path. that is what they provided for me and that is what the project sponsor will provide for mission high school students. i will be personally participating in it and speaking through the program, i gained exposure to a wide range of career path that helped me understand where my interests lie. the program provided me access to a large group of presenters that expanded my network and helped my job search after a completed college. i am helping the city with affordable housing and without these programs, i would not have known about the industry or the wide range of job opportunities within it. our previous and current mayor grew up in public housing and

utilized similar programs to escape the reality. similar to what happened with me with low income housing on treasure island. more youth head should have access to these programs. it will help me and/or and our future chill -- future leaders learn about the professional world of caring individuals. >> thank you. any other speakers? we will now move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellants you have three minutes. >> if there isn't affordable housing, there won't be any students to take advantage of this program. i wanted to read a quote from commissioner hillis. at the january 25th hearing, he said that people need to come to the community and they rely on the community to negotiate with developers and come with projects that they think work, have higher levels of affordability and have ground-floor space that is not a gentrifying factor.

we make these kinds of agreements all the time and we work with a lot of great developers that work with us to make better projects. and i would have to say that we know that the history of rubicon point partners is to convert industrial space into creative office space to gentrify spaces. that is one of the reasons that we are asking that if something happens to the fitzgerald family , they don't come back and they can't meet the terms of their lease, that we have a community agreement as a backup to make sure that that space does not get gentrified. we are not asking anymore. we are asking just to meet the terms of that agreement. as for the affordable unit, just to bring it to an affordable rate of 120% a.m.i. you have the discretion to actually add these things if you

don't want to send it back to the commission. but there definitely was an error and what was stated by the project sponsor as affordability for p.d.r. and the commissioners did not have all the information we know from working with other developers and from being at the commission all the time that they would have asked the project sponsor to do better. and the reason this came back and was continued several times, the commissioners scent it back twice because a project sponsor was not working with the community and the project was terrible and they were not happy with it. it was continued several times. the rest of the times by the project sponsor. and the community did not ask to have a continued and we tried repeatedly to meet with them and to work out an agreement. we often get very long term leases of 50 years. we've gotten p.d.r. space for one dollar and we are not asking

a a lot of this developer. thank you. >> excuse me. i have a question. you said there is past examples of rubicon doing similar. >> they have four properties in san francisco that they have taken that were industrial and now they are creative office space. they are at 1125 mission street, 1263 mission street, 450 shotwell and 1,499th street. on their website, that is their language that we took from the website. they specialize in industrial to creative office conversions. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr loper? >> if i could get the overhead, please. talking about negotiations, this

is a demand letter that we received from a lawyer affiliated with the appellant. right before our first hearing, laying out exactly what they wanted from the project sponsor. they wanted on site affordable housing. we not only switched to this, but we voluntarily increased our affordable housing by 2.5%. they didn't want the fitzgerald to leave in the project sponsor in the fitzgerald family spent a long time working out programming to make sure the ground-floor space would work and a system to make sure they could he voluntarily relocated at the expense of the project sponsor twice. away from the site if the project gets approved and gets constructed and then back. we are meeting those two goals. parking. we are asked to reduce parking. we reduced it by nearly 50%. we were told that having more

parking was a gentrifying impact of the project. and then there was no commitment to local hire union labor. the project is doing a 50% l.b.e. and doing local hiring that is only usually required a public private partnerships. we are not aware of any private project that is doing that. moving on to p.d.r. and what is affordable p.d.r. these are market rate comps. this is for nude construction and substantial rehabilitation. so i think there has been a little bit of miscommunication from some of the folks in the neighborhood who are talking about existing p.d.r. space that can be old.

this is creating 10,000 square feet of brand-new p.d.r. space. this top figure, $4.87, that is an area wide range of average monthly per square foot rent for p.d.r. spaces from 2016-2018. the bottom figure, these are the projects in the mission. it is $4.88 per square foot. three dollars a square foot is about 40% less than that. in a 10,000 square-foot space, that equates to $224,000. basically a quarter of a million dollars every year at discount. thank you for your time. >> i have a question. i know you guys voluntarily

weren't mandated to make the downstairs p.d.r. is that memorialized? >> yeah, it is in the project approval. it is in the project plans. there is no way to switch that anything other than p.d.r. without going through a very, very public process that involves the right to go to the planning commission where anybody who is opposed to the potential future tenant could go in there and start complaining. this project cannot be turned into retail or creative office. >> okay. on the other question was segmenting that. isn't required to keep it in one large space to accommodate a factory or do you have the ability to subdivide and do multiple spaces? >> it is entitled as one large space and it was designed for the existing tenants. specifically so the existing tenant could run its furniture and upholstery business in

theory. it could be subdivided but that would be a significant cost and a wooden cup involve involving who would do next tenant would be and when they would come in. there is an added cost. it is not like you can just throw up a couple while. >> might last question is, i know it is tough on the neighborhood and the fact that you did volunteer and extra unit , everyone will say it is not enough. not many people do volunteer but you had that last unit at 150% a.m.i. that is just one unit. are you willing to drop the a.m.i. on that one particular unit? >> i cannot answer that question right now. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> let me ask you a follow-up question. is that p.d.r. issue in perpetuity? does it have a term to it? is it required that one fitzgerald leaves that it must

continue as p.d.r.? i'm not wishing that fitzgerald leaves, but 30 years from now, 40 years from now, will it still be p.d.r.? >> it is 10,000 square feet of p.d.r. which is exceptional for a project of this size. >> is your client here? >> yes. >> who is your client? >> back there. in the back. >> i'm sorry there is no talking thank you. >> okay. mr sanchez? >> thank you. it has been suggested that the board could remount this back to the planning commission. it is not something that is available at this point. the board is a final decision need to approve can't deny or modify the project as it is

proposed. other items, i was happy to hear the project sponsor state that the p.d.r. is a requirement of the condition of approval but i did not see that in the motion. some may be they can put that forward. my understanding is the p.d.r. is part of the project description but there is nothing in the motion that would prevent that use from being changed to another code compliant use in the future. notification is required but i did not see that as a commission i'm happy to hear that they believe it is a condition. may be they can address that more thoroughly. >> we can take care of that tonight. >> with that, i think that is all. >> thank you. >> understanding that developers are having to do a lot of give in the city, everyone says they are getting what they are

getting but evidently, this project has been going on since 2014. it did not happen overnight. i do have a question. we will probably,, if it is not memorialized that the p.d.r. stay in perpetuity, have you heard of keeping it in one large space rather than -- what would your input be on that? >> it was not necessarily an issue with subdividing it and smaller spaces being contractors contrary to the code. there is no use sized issues that i would see at hand here but i can take a second look at it. to that point too, what i meant to add as well, we have a public process for a reason. this project, while it may not be the level that the appellant would like to see, there have been improvements.

we have a project that was seeking more exceptions and is now more in compliant and it does have p.d.r. components. the project has improved over time and it speaks to the process. thank you. >> let's just clarify. i don't think the planning code has anything against subdivisions. >> we do have various size requirements. >> unless it is specifically stated in the motion. as an example, what you did with the supermarket inclusion and stuff like that. >> i don't think there is any issue with subdividing -- subdividing it but i will take another look at the district. >> one last question. since this project was approved, how are the state density increases working with our local ordinances? i know the state is much more accepting of larger density packages. additional floors.

>> what is not known as the state density law really predates a locked lot. it goes back to the leas seventies -- late seventies of the density bonus program and has been amended since then. that is something that someone would have to opt into and they have not chosen to opt into that program. >> i think that is 35% and 22 additional floors. >> there are more floors and more units. some cases can dilute the affordability. >> exactly. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners commissioners, is this matter submitted? >> would like to start? >> i will. as many of you aren't long-term residents of the city, so my. it is very tough to see the process that our city is going through and the affordability that we are enduring and that our kids and may be we can't afford to live in our own city

anymore. but when you look at projects like this and there is no displacement, they're not evicting tenants, they played by the rules for the most part, and unfortunately, not everyone will get what they want. but they have exceeded everything that they were supposed to do. in my opinion, i'm not willing to send this back. the only thing i would recommend or suggest would be that the p.d.r. space that we memorialized that. so they can't turn it into a coffee shop. that is what my take is. >> i agree. >> question for mr sanchez. these are the findings from the planning commission. but did we see the actual motion

>> you should have received a copy of the motion. i can put it on the overhead. it does contain the findings as well as the conditions of approval in the last several pages of the document. >> i did not see within that, the document within the p.d.r. >> neither did i. the project sponsor stated it was a condition of approval and may be they can elaborate on that. it is exhibit a which is begetting page 26 of the motion. that is where the conditions of approval are. it is certainly part of the project description but as it has been applied, unless there are specific conditions, they can then make changes in the future in compliance with the zoning.

>> it begins on page 26. it is exhibit a. many of these conditions have some that are specific to this. i didn't see anything. again it would be quicker and easier if they would make an address. >> sure. i will at, former zoning administrator sanchez? what i was talking about is, not to get too more wonky here, by the section 312 notification that is required if this project were to change from p.d.r. to any other use and what that means is, and i'm sure mitch or george mr sanchez knows the rules better than i do, but notice gets sent out to registered neighborhood groups

of people within 300 feet of the site about what the proposed change of use. and then there is a right to take that to the planning commission as a discretionary review. >> you have been presenting that the p.d.r. and now you are saying you guys come back out of that? >> no. how about this. i understand where the concern is coming from and you heard it from the family that they will come back. this basis p.d.r. it is entitled as p.d.r. we have to go through a public process to do anything that would make it anything other than p.d.r. and i believe that you guys will close the door on evening having the opportunity for something to slip through the cracks so you won't fight this anymore.

>> still zoning administrator scott sanchez. >> so would special restrictions to be the best way to handle this or do you recommend an alternative? >> the notice of special restrictions is to document on the title of the property the restrictions that are imposed. the most important thing is the condition that it exists. i've never -- they said it was a condition of approval. they could change the use and it would need to go through any necessary code requirements and 312 does require notice of changes of use. >> but that is different. you have an entitled use,, you are not allowed to change it. >> the approval is not for -- there is no condition of approval.

they didn't need to seek project authorization for the fact that it is p.d.r. there is no conditional use authorization for a certain use. it is not like this is a restaurant see you. this is a large project authorization. they can do whatever is allowed under the zoning. >> unless the planning commission specifically included that as a condition of their approval. from the discussion and the history, it appears that was a fairly important element. >> i agree. the commission did not impose that. if the board would have proposed that condition, then the only thing to change the condition would be to come back to the boards for seeking that change. is a condition opposed by the board that can only be undone by the board.

>> and frank will still probably be here for another century. [laughter] >> apologies. >> if we are done, i am willing to take a stab at a motion. as it denied the appeal with condition or accept the appeal? >> grants the appeal on the condition that the p.d.r. space is required to stay p.d.r. and there will be a special restriction that the use is not changed. >> on what basis? >> it appears that was the agreed or meaning by the commission. >> it is a p.d.r. use in compliance with the underlining zoning district. so there is not like a fish factory there.

not all p.d.r. uses will be allowed. >> i said that, right? good. i'm just clarifying. >> it is your first night. it is okay. >> your mike. >> you need to find that he abused his discretion by failing to approve that. >> we will just say he errored. >> but they would have to err in their interpretation of the code >> failure to add those conditions into the approval. >> so they abused their discretion? all right. i will do my best. we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal and revise the section 29 large project authorization to

require that the current p.d.r. space remain in effect and as memorialized in the specialty that restrictions need to be recorded on the property on the basis that the planning commission erred. is that fine? >> can i make one suggestion that it be the proposed. it is not the current p.d.r. space it is the proposed p.d.r. space. >> the proposed p.d.r. space. >> and we have to add the language that the d.a. said. that the p.d.r. use is otherwise underlined. >> the proposed p.d.r. space and -- [laughter] >> you are losing me here. >> you are doing really well,

director. >> that was good. it is just that the proposed p.d.r. space, as allowed under the zoning that it doesn't -- >> as allowed under zoning. >> i will try again. >> can i ask -- >> you can. change the word of effect to permit with regard to the p.d.r. space. in perpetuity. >> the way it reads to me is that the first time around, at the very least, it should sustain as p.d.r. i think it was the intent of the commissioner to have that p.d.r.

space permanent. and in perpetuity. >> okay. on that motion. [roll call] >> that motion carries.

thank you. that concludes the hearing. >> meeting is adjourned.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the special meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. today is november 2nd, 2018. thank you all for being here with us for this important matter. i will begin with attendance and i will lead the pledge of allegiance. we'll move to communications and then the members will nominate and appoint their presiding officer pro tem for the day. to roll call for attendance. [ roll call ]

>> we have a quorum. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. to the republic, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. during the call of the rolls those marked present, those marked not present were supervisor kim, supervisor peskin and president cohen. my office is in receipt of three requests to be excused from today's meeting by supervisor

kim peskin and president cohen. in a moment, a motion to excuse the members from today's meeting will be presented by the presiding officer pro tem, when appointed by the members. but first, to our organizational issue, given that the president of the board is not present at today's meeting, pursuant to board rule 4.7 the clerk of the board will call the meeting to order and additionally, given that the president is not present, the members will decide who, among them, will be the presiding officer for today's meeting. historically, the most senior member of the board is appointed to be the chair. but it can be another member of the board. once this member is appointed, the appointment will terminate at the end of the meeting today. the nomination requires a first, a second and a majority of the members present. and if you are ready, i will call the names on the roster as they appear. if there is one nomination, we

will just vote on that nomination. if there are more names than one, then a different type of voting will occur and we'll cross that bridge if it's necessary. so, if you are ready to make a nomination, nominations are open. supervisor ronen, your name is on the roster. >> thank you, madam clerk. i have an opportunity to talk to supervisor yee and ask him, as one of the senior most members of this board if he would be willing to pre side as president pro tem of this meeting and he said that he would. and so i'd like to nominate norman yee, supervisor yee and thank him for his willingness to play this role. >> thank you, supervisor ronen has nominated supervisor yee. is there a second? >> second. >> supervisor safai is the second. are there any other nominations to be made? >> call ones and twice. there are no other nominations,

nominations are closed. so then, supervisor ronen, thank you for removing your name from the roster. motion made by supervisor ronen and seconds by supervisor yee to nominate supervisor safai to nominate supervisor yee. can we do that with unanimous content. ok. supervisor yee, congratulations. chair yee now. i'll take a moment to hand him the gavel.

let's get started. first of all, i have your chair protem. colleagues, may i have a motion to excuse president cohen, supervisor peskin s there a second. supervisor fewer. madam clerk. can i have roll call. >> clerk: on the motion to excuse supervisors kim, peskin and president cohen. supervisor fewer. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai.

>> aye. >> supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> tang. >> eye. >> yee. >> aye. >> brown. >> aye. there are eight ayes. >> good. president cohen, supervisor kim and supervisor peskin are excused from today's meeting by unanimous vote. please call today's item. >> clerk: the board of supervisors approved a motion to convene as a committee of the whole today, at a special meeting of the board of supervisors. for a public hearing regarding the month-long major labor dispute between san francisco hiss pit tally industry to include the 2,000 hotel workers who walked off the job at southern marriott operated hotels citing the company's failure to keep up with the escalating cost of living and growing job insecurity. >> ok. thank you, as a clerk stated the motion to enter into a committee

of the whole was approved on october 30th. therefore, we will now convene as a committee of the whole. are there any opening statements from the members before i open to public comment? supervisor ronen. >> thank you so much, chair yee. i wanted to just start out by thanking my colleagues and thanking the clerk and the city attorney's office for being here. it's very unusual that we call a special meeting of the board of supervisors to hear an item on a friday afternoon, especially four days before an election. i think the willingness of my colleagues to come and hold this special meeting and for us to make these arrangements is testament to how important this issue is to the city and county of san francisco. so i just really wanted to thank all my colleagues for moving

around your busy schedules to be here. i also want to note, my disappointment that the c.e.o. of marriott isn't here. i did send mr. sorenson a letter asking for him to be here. i did receive a letter in response declining to come here. but i just wanted to ask now if there's any representatives from marriott who showed up today? if you have, can you please make yourself be known. i don't see anyone. i know we do have overflow rooms in room 263 and in the north side court. if there is any representative of marriott, please come to the board chamber because we would like to hear from you. i will say that there are thousands of