different merchants, and help give out our materials. thank you so much. [applause] >> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors, our first committee of the new committee structure of the new year. monday, january 28, 2019. i am the chair, aaron peskin, joined to my right by supervisor 5 hsha safai and shortly to be joined by supervisor and new committee member matt haney. our clerk is erica major.

we are joined in the audience by planning commissioner dennis richards. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: do you have any other extraneous announcements that you would like to make, madam clerk? >> clerk: i do not. >> chair peskin: okay. i thought you wanted to make an announcement about emergency evacuation procedures? >> clerk: that would be in the case of an emergency evacuation. >> chair peskin: thank you. madam clerk, i would like to welcome the counsel to this committee, counsel john give mer. welcome, mr. givner. madam clerk, the first item,

please. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. and let me just start out by saying when i became the chair of this committee, i found out that there were actually a number of landmark designations that had been recommended by the historic reservation commission that were on the backlog of this committee's calendar, and i intend to bring them forward to this committee, including several at our next meeting on the 11th day of february . and this measure has been sponsored by supervisor mandelman. and i see his representative today. sir, if you'd like to come back on behalf of supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, supervisors. i am here to speak in support

of the historic landmark designation for the property at 22 beaver street, one of the oldest homes in the duboce triangle of district eight. the home originally built in the 1870's is one of the few structures in the neighborhood to survive the 1906 earthquake with minimal renovations to the italian style exterior. it is our belief that the duboce triangle neighborhood and san francisco at large would benefit from the designation of this property, and i ask that you support the history torque designation. i thank you, supervisors for your time. >> chair peskin: thank you. and on behalf of the planning department, miss ferguson. >> good afternoon, supervisors. janet ferguson, planning department staff. i'm here to present the historic preservation

commission's finding. the department received a community sponsored landmark designation from the property owner in june 2018. the landmark designation report was prepared by the planning department preservation consulting, and the h.p.c. initiated designation on september 19, 2018 and unanimously recommended landmark designation on november 7, 2018. constructed circa 1870, it's architecturally significant as a very early and well preserved italian villa within a garden setting. in contrast to the much more italian eight row houses, the house has italian detailing on

three of its four destinations, indicating that it was meant to be appreciated in its garden setting. out buildings include a historic carriage house and nonhistoric garage. character defining features include the exterior as well as that landscape garden setting. the property owner is very supportive of landmark designation and also planning commissioner richards has been very involved in helping with the landmark designation. the department believes the building meeted the established eligibility status, and the designation is warranted. this concludes my presentation. happy to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss ferguson. before i bring up mr. verplank who prepared the report, i'd like to bring forward our esteemed planning commissioner dennis richards, mr. richards. >> commissioner richards: thank

you. dennis richards here as an individual citizen because the commission did not hear this item. this house was a special house. i see -- i live directly across the street and i've been looking at it ever since i've lived in my house. people walk up the street and marvel that this house survived. it was on an 80 foot lot, and a 20-foot section was cut in 1953 as per the case report. the palm tree on the next door lot is also going to be coming before you as a separate landmarking of the tree because it was original to the house -- i think it was built in 1869. people walk up the street. it's an amazing house, even on the inside. we have the owner of the house, miss geiling, who's been in the house since 1966, and against all odds, in the '60's and '70's, and the federal

government came in, and we were supposed to be a redevelopment 2.0 area, she actually participated in the federally assisted code enforcement program known as face. it also created the landscape that we have in duboce triangle that many, many people including tour buses drive through the city and can't believe how lush it is. a couple of other things. this house, in its setting, plus most of the rest of duboce triangle is a california registered district. we had, as a planning department, determined in 200 # when the market octavia program was passed, several of us are going to be getting duboce triangle on the historic register because if it's on the california register, it is exempt. and i'm also working with several other folks from several other neighborhoods that are also eligible

districts to get them on the register. one last thing, if this esteemed committee or the board of supervisors can hold a hearing on s.b.-50 and its actual impact on san francisco because i've read the legislation and i've seen all the places where it points to, and you really need to understand it. it's -- it's going to rezone everything again, so thank you very much. i support this landmarking. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner richards, testifying in your capacity as a citizen of the city and county of san francisco and the matter that you just brought up is not before us, so we, as you know, pursuant to the brown act, cannot discuss that, but thank you for edifying us on the history of this property. with that, mr. verplank, who wrote the case report on this, please come forward.

>> thank you, chair peskin. justin sevplank. i want to thank the owner of the property, miss te tess geiling. without her effort and the effort of her husband, john, this property would be a stucco home or parking lot, no doubt about it. they painstakingly preserved 22 beaver street, but they've also put the personal touches on the property in the time they've owned it, which is why we decided to call it the benedict-gieling house. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. verplank, and thank you for all the work you do on behalf of historic preservation. you do it scientifically. miss gieling, if you want to

come forward, and if you don't, i see just want to thank you for stewarding the house since before i was born, but if you'd like to come forward, we'd like to hear from you. right there. there you go. miss gieling, the floor is yours. >> i'm jean gieling. i've owned beaver street, 22 beaver for more than 60 years, and i think i've seen it at its worst, and i'm beginning to see it at its best. in the beginning, the house was

in such miserable condition, it was rumored that it would become motel. well, nobody on the street wanted that, and when we bought it, the neighbors came one by one to tell me how grateful they were that we would be able to restore the house and to live there. i've been in restoration for more than 60 years, but i'm sure i can finish it. and the neighbors told me a

great deal about the beginnings of the house. but what i've been seeing is the fact as i've worked on the house to bring it up to standard, the rest of the neighborhood came with me. beaver street had been left more or less neglected because of the rumor that it would become a park, a -- well, it was to become something they did not want, either a motel or

a nursing home. and as i've worked, the neighborhood has improved. everybody has painted his house and made it the street it is today, which i think is one of the best, most livable places in the entire city. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss gieling, for your stewardship and for resisting the worst of development. and to my two new colleagues on this panel, that i've serve off

and on on this panel for their part of a generation, i would like to see that we will see landmark designations come before us, some of them with the support of landowners, some of them with the vociferous opposition of landowners. of course, within our laws, we can landmark a building with or without support of property owner, but when a property owner like miss gieling comes forward and wants to do the right thing for the next seven generations, i personally want to salute her and people like here. to people like dennis richards, thank you for making this happen, albeit, it probably ads value to your property across the street, but you're doing it in your personal capacity so you have no conflict. mr. givner has assured me of such. with that, is there any public

comment on this matter? you already spoke. seeing no public comment, colleagues, would we like to allow commissioner richards to speak again? without objection, mr. richards, the floor is yours. >> commissioner richards: i just want to say one thing about mrs. gieling. she is a living part of san francisco history. she is a metallurgist. some of her friends were imogene cunningham, who was a photographer of past, as well as ruth isawa, who helped her restore the house. >> chair peskin: thank you very much, commissioner richards. miss gieling, if we could

preserve you, we would. colleagues, is there a motion to forward this to the full board? >> supervisor haney: so moved. >> chair peskin: motion made by supervisor haney. we'll take that without objection. thank you, one and all. madam clerk, next item please. >> thank you. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. colleagues, i do believe that supervisor vice chair safai is very familiar with what is a major encroachment permit, and i do not know, before i do not

violate the brown act, whether supervisor haney knows what a major encroachment permit is. but over the last couple of years, my office has endeavored to make sense of a pellmell scheme around major encroachment schemes where in private parties have a license or right to the public right-of-way, and there are many of these that have issued over the last 150-plus years in the city and county of san francisco. and i want to thank the number of interns who actually assembled a list of major encroachment permits that had issued. and there was no real clear way in our code as to how they should be revoked. and with the help of the city

attorney, we actually created some changes to the major encroachment law which were unanimously passed. i believe supervisor safai was on the board and voted in favor of that. but as with all pieces of legislation, this is an evolving area of law, and akin to a piece of legislation i passed i think in 2002 or '03. the change that is scheduled before the board of supervisors would allow us to schedule a hearing before the board regarding revocation of a permit when the director of public works has not timely scheduled and held a hearing or issued a decision regarding said revocation. i am happy to explain this.

and before i do that, is there anybody here from the department of public works who would like to speak to this item? thank you for coming here this afternoon, and i do not know your name, so if you could tell me what it is, i would be happy to announce that. >> thank you. my name is jeremy spitz. i am in the director's office, and i work on legislative affairs. >> chair peskin: jeremy spitz, like as the swimmer, mark? >> yes. no relation. the director of public works has reviewed this legislation. there is no major change, and it is a policy direction to the board. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. spitz. i look forward to getting to know you, and thank you for coming this afternoon. supervisor safai?

>> supervisor safai: thank you. that's always music to supervisor peskin's ears, when he hears the director has no objection to his legislation. so i have a few questions. we worked on this last year. we moved forward, but i know we sent this back to committee to have further conversations. one of the things i wanted to talk about on page 3, line 23, when it talks about the director shall mail notice of this decision, i wanted to know if we could add language, by certified mail just so -- >> chair peskin: upon filing of the notice -- no, line 21. >> supervisor safai: page 22 and 23. >> chair peskin: excuse me. >> supervisor safai: you're on the wrong page. >> chair peskin: within a reasonable -- this is the

subsection b-1. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> chair peskin: within a reasonable period of time after the administrative hearing, this is for anybody who's watching, old language -- the director shall issue a written decision on the permittee's cure, if any, and the public revocation petition and fine based on the public interest that the director will reject the petition, approve the petition or initiate revocation of the permit on the grounds -- on grounds other than those identified in the petition. the director shall mail notice of this decision to the lead petitioner, the permit holder, and you are suggesting at line 22 that the director shall do this by certified mail? >> supervisor safai: yes, just based on problems that we've had in the past based on individuals not receiving. that's a friendly amendment. >> chair peskin: i personally do not care. there are many notice provisions, and there are many definitions of notice, and i

will ask deputy city attorney jon givner to opine about the definition of notice. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. i'm not sure whether in article 15 or elsewhere in the public works code, there's any requirement for the director of public works when providing mailed notice to do it by certified mail. i can check. you can certainly make this amendment next tuesday at the board. >> supervisor safai: yeah. i guess i started a little bit later through the chair. i started -- no longer a question to you, deputy city attorney, but my question would be i sounded like you had interns do a lot of research. one of my questions was how many, if any, have ever been -- how many major encroachments have not been revoked? and i would imagine because we're talking about, when often times -- just for the public's

edification, i know you're aware of this. often times when you're doing development, some of that development leads into or has a relationship in the public right-of-way, and that's what the minor and major encroachments are for. very often, it's required, not necessarily anticipated, but it's required by the planning department or those that are designing the projects on the frontage or on the side of the property, depending on where it lays in the alley and so on and so forth. one of the ways they often will solve for the problem is to ask the folks that are developing something to -- they pretty much require a major encroachment. so it becomes part of the overall development. so my question was, in a lot of instances, this is essentially part of the design and part of the overall building or envelope and so on. so you don't have to answer this now, and i'm sure we would get that as part of this process. but i would imagine that we

probably haven't ever revoked any major encroachment. i know that that authority is there, and it lies within the ability -- i know one of the projects that we worked on when i was at public works was a home, and it was in the san jose gulch, where they took, by eminent domain, many of the parcels, and then, they left some of the parcels adjacent to existing structures. and so one of them was a property that the actual yard or the open space, it seemed as though it was adjacent, but actually was a major encroachment -- >> chair peskin: in the driveway. >> supervisor safai: no, this one was not. it was the entire yard, and at some point, d.p.w. was considering revoking it, but then, they formalized an agreement. but in that agreement always rested the authority if necessary in the future, the director of public works had the ability to revoke that. and that was understood and it was disclosed in the property. so i just wanted to make sure

if we were going to go down this route, and i would imagine there would be a very few situations that we wouldn't get into -- adding that would be more like a friendly amendment. >> chair peskin: sure. let's take the first and the second issue. the first, i think the director has the authority to send it by certified mail should the director desire, so we can let the city attorney drill down on that between now and next tuesday. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> chair peskin: but with regard to revocation -- and this is related to the new member of this panel, the difference between minor and major encroachment permits, minor can be issued by the director, and major

encroachment permits can only be issued by the body. there are tons of minor. if you would like to put a planter in front of your house or apartment building on the street, and you want to do it properly, you actually go and ask for a minor encroachment permit. a major encroachment is much more akin to a license or right, but the city retains in that instrument the ability to revoke it. and there actually -- and i would be misrepresenting if i told you the number of major encroachments that would be revoked in my intern's research of 2.5 years ago, but there actually have been some that have been revoked by the city for a variety of reasons. but insofar as they are granted by the elected body, i want today make sure -- >> supervisor safai: we have the ability -- >> chair peskin: right. we have the ability to revoke

them. in this particular amendment, the issue is a fine-tuning of what we voted for unanimously after some back and forth and rereferral to committee, and that is what i would call justice delayed is justice denied which is to the extent that the director, whoever he or she may be now and in the future does not issue a written decision or does not hold a hearing that five of us, as we do in the case of conditional use authorization appeals can bring that matter before this board. this is really a due process issue. >> supervisor safai: right, but. >> chair peskin: and with that, i hand it back to you, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. that is almost 100% of the story, but it also -- if members of the board don't agree with the decision, you give us the ability to appeal. so that is one step beyond. so we have that --

>> chair peskin: the court of last resort, the people's court. >> supervisor safai: the people -- for the people. >> chair peskin: i'm not running for president of the united states, i'm just chair of the land use committee. >> supervisor safai: in same section, right above that section on page three, section 2-a-ii. >> chair peskin: got it. >> supervisor safai: begins with if the director accepts the petition, the director shall schedule an administrative hearing no earlier than 60 days and no later than 90 days after the date of the petition acceptance in order to provide the permit holder with an opportunity to cure the problems associated with the permit as identified in the petition. at the administrative hearing, the director shall provide the petitioner with a chance to provide proof that the problems have been cured in the

petition. in the next section, prior to any administrative hearing in the petition, the director shall develop an estimate of the cost -- [inaudible] >> supervisor safai: -- shall shall bear the cost. it is a party other than the permittee. i just wanted to ask mr. spitz to come back up. through the chair, i wanted to ensure that 60 to 90 days on this situation -- if the director was going to be making this decision because his decision is based on two factors that we then have the opportunity to move past, one of which is determination of successful cure or whether or not engineering design is factored in. those are the two factors of which the director has the ability to deny the petition or determine. and i just wanted to know, in your opinion -- and it makes me a little wary that 60 to 90

days might not be enough time to develop a cost estimate. so i wanted to be sure that there could be some language that there would be an additional period of time -- a small amount of time to determine whether or not this is a right time frame to give a cost estimate on who the -- who the responsible party, the permittee, the cost estimate associated with the revokation and restoration of this major encroachment. so first, i'm happy to hear what the chair has to say, but i also wanted to give an opportunity to public works -- but if you'd like to go first. >> chair peskin: i'd very like to hear mr. spitz. in that no less than 60 and no more than 90 days, what the department has to do is develop a cost estimate of the cost of revocation and number two, identify the responsible party. >> supervisor safai: and associated restoration. >> chair peskin: yes, costs

and -- well, that's the costs. revocation and restoration is the costs, so if you have to remove the driveway, that's the cost, so same thing. so we're kind of replowing old ground here, which is that insofar as when this first came before earlier incarnation of this committee and went to the board and came back to this committee and went back to the full board, all of these issues were settled. what is really before this panel today is really a due process matter. so the department, which ultimately supported the legislation, which this part is not actually before us, was in support of the 60 to 90 days. the funny thing about this is this is mostly a theoretical conversation because as we both stipulated to, very few of

these happen, and the department is respectfully well resourced. but thus far, i have not heard any issues or complaints relative to the 60 or 90 days. but with that, mr. spitz, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor safai, 60 to 90 days should be sufficient. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. and then lastly -- so -- well, i guess that's -- i guess my last question was just -- just maybe for the city attorney through the chair, on page four, just the first reference on -- in section -- in section 2-b, bullet number 2-biii, if

the director rejects the petition based solely on engineering design, is that defined somewhere in the code, engineering design? >> chair peskin: ah, i remember these conversations. mr. givner? >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the -- under state law, the city engineer, which is housed in -- works for d.p.w. has exclusive authority to determine engineering design issues. i believe that the -- that the term is -- i don't know if that specific term is defined, but the scope of the city engineer's authority is defined in state law rather than this ordinance. >> supervisor safai: okay. i just wanted to clarify. that was it. thank you, mr. peskin. it seems, mr. chair, that the only thing we'll hear back on is the issue of certified mail. >> chair peskin: well i said in the beginning, i'm okay with

it, but i could careless. okay. if there's any member of the public that would like to testify on item 2, please come forward. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues, if there are no amendments, i would entertain a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation, we can handle that on tuesday. >> supervisor safai: move. >> chair peskin: so moved by supervisor safai, and with that, we are adjourned. [gavel]

in this san francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with

the switch over to cleanpowersf. this clean power opportunity reflects that. i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community. >> my biggest take away is that you can always find a way. most people who go into public policies really want to make a difference and have a positive impact on the world, and that's what i love most about my job. i feel like every day at the sfpuc all of the policies that we're involved in have major impacts on people's lives both here in the city and across the

state and the nation. in 2017, california senate bill 649 was released. it would have capped the fees that cities such as ourselves would be able to charge telecom companies for the right to use or poll for their cell equipments, and it also would have taken away city's abilities to negotiate what the equipment looks like, where they could be placed, and potentially we could even be in a position where we would not be able to stop them putting equipment especially on our light poles. my name is emily lamb and i am director of policy affairs for the sfpuc. i really am involved with a team of people and building a strong coalition of a team of folks. we are working very closely to get this bill defeated and ultimately vetoed by governor

brown. >> emily is one of those people who is a bright star with regards to her passion, her commitment, her tenacity and she's just a great, fun person. she's all of the things that you would want in an employee and an ambassador for our organization. >> my biggest take away is you can always find a way, especially when something is important and worth fighting for, if you put your heads together with people, and you collaborate, that usually you can find some solution to get to your goal. in this case, it was a bill that most people considered politically difficult to complete, and we didn't have a chance of doing it, but with a lot of strattizing with a lot of different partners, we got it done. my name is emily lamb, and i am the director of policy and government affairs, and i've been with sfpuc for 2.5 years..

>> shop and dine the 49 promotes local businesses and changes san franciscans to do their shopping and dooipg within the 49 square miles by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant so where will you shop and dine the 49 hi in my mind a ms. medina

>> when i look at an old neon sign that's working or not working, i feel the family business that was in there. >> since 2009, citywide, sf shines, has supported businesses and sites like the ones that receive new neon signs. >> you know, sf shines is doing an amazing job to bring back the lighting and the neon glow of san francisco. >> sf shines is such an amazing program, and i can't think of another program in another city that gives matching gunned

funds to store owners, mom and pop owners, and if they've got a neon sign, they've really got a great way to advertise their business. >> this is a continuation of the sf shines program. >> focusing other neon signs is relatively new to us. of the seven neon signs, we've invested about $145,000. >> a good quality sign costs more, but it lasts infinitily longer. as opposed to lasting five years, a good neon sign will last 15 to 20 years. >> in san francisco, the majority of neon signs are for mom-and-pop businesses. in order to be able to restore these signs, i think it gives back to your community.

>> part of the project has to do with prioritizing certain signs in the neighborhood based on their aesthetics, based on their current signs, and base on the history. in the time that we've been here, we've seen a number of signs restored just on eddy street. >> there are a number of signs in the tenderloin and many more that are waiting or wanting to be restored. i have worked with randall and al, and we've mapped out every single one of them and rated them as to how much work they would need to get restored. that information is passed onto sf shines, and they are going to rank it. so if they have x budget for a year, they can say all right, we're going to pick these five, and they're putting together clusters, so they build on top of what's already there. >> a cluster of neon signs is sort of, i guess, like a

cluster of grapes. when you see them on a corner or on a block, it lights up the neighborhood and creates an ambient glow. if you havy got two of three of them, you've created an atmosphere that's almost like a movie set. >> some of the hotel, we've already invested in to get those neon signs for people to enjoy at night include the elk hotel, jefferson hotel, the verona, not to mention some we've done in chinatown, as well as the city's portal neighborhood. >> we got the fund to restore it. it took five months, and the biggest challenge was it was completely infested with pigeons. once we got it clean, it came out beautiful. >> neon signs are often equated with film noir, and the noir genre as seen through the

hollywood lens basically depicted despair and concentration. >> you would go downtown and see the most recent humphrey bogart film filled with neon in the background. and you'd see that on market street, and as market street got seedier and seedier and fewer people continued to go down, that was what happened to all the neon strips of light. >> the film nori might start with the light filled with neon signs, and end with a scene with a single neon sign blinking and missing a few

letters. >> one of my favorite scenes, orson welles is chasing ririt rita hayworth with neon signs in the background. >> i think what the office of economic and workforce development is very excited with is that we'll be able to see more neon signs in a concentrated way lit up at night for visitors and most especially residents. the first coin laundry, the elm hotel, the western hotel are ones that we want to focus on in the year ahead. >> neon signs are so iconic to certain neighborhoods like the hara, like the nightcap. we want to save as many historic and legacy neon signs in san francisco, and so do they. we bring the expertise, and

they bring the means to actually get the job done. >> people in tenderloin get really excited as they see the signs relit. as you're driving through the tenderloin or the city, it pretty much tells you something exciting is happening here. >> knee an was created to make the night more friendly and advertise businesses. it's a great way of supporting and helping local businesses. >> there's so many ways to improve public safety. the standard way is having more eyes on the street, but there's other culturally significant ways to do that, and one those ways is lighting up the streets. but what better way and special way to do that is by having old, historic neon signs lighting up our streets at night and casting away our shadows. >> when i see things coming back to life, it's like remembering how things were. it's remembering the hotel or the market that went to work

seven days a week to raise their money or to provide a service, and it just -- it just -- it just >> the hon. london breed: all right, folks. how you doing today? i'm london breed. i'm the mayor for san francisco. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and i am really excited to be here because we got something actually accomplished in the city and county of san francisco by working together.

[applause] >> the hon. london breed: i want to take this opportunity to recognize members of the san francisco board of supervisors who are joining us today, including the president of the board of supervisors, norman yee, supervisors vallie brown, ahsha safai, and gordon mar, and matt haney. thank you all so much for being here today. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: now i know that it took us a little while to get here, and one of the things that i am so excited about is the fact that we are here. we are here because the building and construction trades, some members of the board of supervisors, some of our department heads, like phil ginsburg and mohamed nuru, they all came to the table, and many of our l.b.e.s, wanting to make sure that we came up with an agreement that was fair, that supported good wages, that provides opportunities for

people in san francisco, some of whom have never worked a job a day in their life, providing real opportunities for them to be part of the building and construction trades, making sure that our l.b.e.s, who -- especially those who are struggling to do business in the city and county of san francisco have a real shot at growth. and this agreement i think is a fair and balanced agreement that is going to help lead our city into the future. we know that prying to negotiate a project labor agreement started many, many years ago under the leadership of larry mazzola, sr. [applause] >> and it's -- it's only fitting that we actually deliver it with your offspring, larry mazzola, jr. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: it started with the leadership

under the labor council with tim paulson carrying on that tradition with rudy gonzalez who is now head of the labor council here in san francisco. so many amazing people. it really did take a village to get to this place, and i'm honored to be with you here today to sign this important legislation that is really about building strong communities, create opportunities that providing opportunities for growth and making sure that no one is left behind. so this is the beginning. we know that there is still work to do. i also want to recognize josh arce, who's our workforce director. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and thank you all so much, again, for just all of your hard work, for coming to the table, and doing what's necessary to arrive at what i think is a fair and balanced agreement.

and miguel, thank you for being here today. miguel with the l.b.e.s, the person who led the negotiations and made sure that he expressed some of the challenges with a number of the women and minority contractors so that this was a fair and balanced agreement. so i want to thank each and every one of you for being here today. we know that it was a tough road, john and vince and others, and tony. there was some yelling, there was some cursing, that was some really crazy conversations, but you know what? that's how you negotiate. that's how you get things done. you've got to be willing to have the hard conversation. but what i appreciate about everyone who participated in this agreement is that everyone was willing to stay and sit at the table and work through the differences that we have to come up with a compromise where

no one is actually happy about everything, which means we did something right. so today, i'm really proud and excited to sign this agreement. i also want to recognize my deputy chief of staff who helped lead the negotiations, andrea bruss. thank you so much. i don't know how many complaints i got about andrea, but in the end, she was great for leading these negotiations on behalf of my office, and we really couldn't have done this without some dedicated members of the board of supervisors. which included a team -- a tag team of supervisor ahsha safai and supervisor aaron peskin. they really led the negotiations, and supervisor sandy fewer came in with, you know, just some extra oomph to the conversation which really created, again, a fair and balanced agreement, one that we

all can agree is best for the future of the city and county of san francisco. with that, i'd like to introduce supervisor safai to say a few words. [applause] >> supervisor safai: thank you, madam mayor. i can tell you probably this time last year i would not have been able to predict that we would be standing here, ready to sign this agreement. and that's just the truth. i think if you ask anyone that was involved in it, there were a lot of fits and starts. but one of the things that changed was the election in june of this mayor, and this mayor -- yes. [applause] >> supervisor safai: we -- when london breed was the president of the board of supervisors, we had engaged on this topic. we had reached out, started talking with larry and john and everyone involved, and miguel

and juliana, and said this is going to happen. this is going to happen because it's the right thing to do. and many people said, why do we need a p.l.a.? what's the reason for a p.l.a.? we have a good contractor. why do we need this. but when you think about this, it's not about what can happen today, it's about what can happen in the worst times. it's when we have a recession, when people aren't thinking about what can happen in the future and when things turnaround, because at the end of the day, it's about protecting workers, it's about the advancements we've made in city build and local hiring. it's about protecting the advancements we've made in our l.b.e. community. it's about expanding the opportunities for everyone and ensuring that we lead not only for california but for the rest of the nation. this is a historic framework.

i know that larry and the city administrator and all their team and l.b.e. community are going to come together, and they're going to negotiate in the next year a wonderful agreement that's going to advance us. but i have to say when mayor breed was elected it was a game changer. within since months of her being in office so many things have happened for organized labor that had been talked about for decades that had never happened. we negotiated a citywide m.c.o. agreement. that was a commitment on the magnitude of millions of dollars. we have negotiated the framework now for a citywide p.l.a. larry, sr. told me on the way in that he's been talking about this for 20 year. this mayor, and her leadership on the board of supervisors, we got this done in the first six months of her being in office. [applause] >> supervisor safai: so yes, there were a lot of people that were under the radar.

i want to give a big shout out to massoud from the p.u.c. the p.u.c. also helped in these negotiations. the city administrator, we had negotiations, i was sitting in my robe in front of the fireplace at 1:00 in the morning on the phone with these folks. i'm sure on the other end of the line, they're thinking how are we up at 1:00 in the morning, trying to get this done? but in the end, it was a unanimous vote by the board of supervisors, a unanimous vote, larry, and we did it, and we did it for every single one of these workers that are sitting here, the one that will follow them, and we set the framework for the city and county of san francisco. so thank you, madam mayor. thank you. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and with that, i'd like to introduce miguel galarza to come up and say a few words. this guy right here is a real tough negotiator, but really, a

great businessman in the city and county of san francisco, one who represented minority contractors and women contractors in the city, and he did a phenomenal job. miguel? [applause] >> thank you. i just want to say thank you to all the council members. despite our disagreements at the beginning, we came together and put together a policy that's going to make a difference for many of our city workers that are not in the building trades council or open shop businesses, that sooner or later will be part of the brotherhood that is the union workforce, so thank you all for making it happen. i also want to thank the mayor for her leadership. there's no doubt that she may say i'm a tough negotiator, but she held the line, and she made sure that we stayed there for hours and hours and hours, and

she calmed everybody down when tensions were high, and at the end of the day, we -- they wouldn't be high until we all had passion, and there's passion on the building trades for the right reason. they've made a difference in people's lives for a long time. and there's passion for those of us that own businesses. i'm a kid from the mission district. i started out as a carpenter back in the 70's, and now today, i have 70 employees. so all of you that are in the building trades now, shoot for the stars because ultimately, you will be the next generation of union employers and employees that will continue to make san francisco what it is today, the shining star of the nation. and with that, thank you for making -- again, for making it happen, mayor, supervisors, and enjoy your day. [applause]