applicablit applicablity. . >> commissioner murase: it's a multisector collaborative. we will be working with young community developers and vacat -- >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, i just -- if i may. we just have one easy question. we all know -- >> president yee: supervisor peskin, supervisor peskin, do we need a presentation, is that the question? >> supervisor safai: no, i'm sorry. so the question is, through the chair -- >> president yee: thank you. >> supervisor safai: -- has anybody been hired under this grant? >> commissioner murase: nobody has been hired because this is first reading.

i'm waiting for second reading. i'm happy to go through the timeline for approval? >> president yee: i don't think that's necessary. we just wanted to know if the person has been hired or not. >> supervisor safai: sorry. i just wanted to say if that was okay with the chair and supervisor peskin, i'm going to say some of things that you were going to say. this $400,000 grant is in response to the need and the necessity for us to bring together a collaborative process to deal with the issue of domestic violence that's still prevalent in our city. the department of women is going to convene that process and lead many developers and all the organizations working with youth are going to convene and do training. there is a need to hire a part-time person. that part-time person has not been hired. thank you, commissioner merase.

this is a highly competitive grant, and san francisco was chosen among a whole host of people that had applied for this. >> president yee: supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you, president yee. i'd like to recuse myself from this vote because colleagues will be receiving funds from this grant yeeg yeeg colleagues, can we have a motion to cluexclude superviso walton? can we have a roll call on the motion to excuse supervisor walton? >> clerk: yes. on the motion to excuse supervisor walton --

[roll call] >> clerk: there are nine ayes and two absences. >> president yee: the item passes. so can we take item 19. >> clerk: yes, mr. president, and just a correction, there are eight ayes. >> president yee: eight ayes. >> clerk: so on the item -- [ro

[roll call] >> clerk: there are eight ayes. >> president yee: this resolution is adopted, 8-0, so -- [gavel]. >> president yee: this -- let's go to our 3:00 special order. >> clerk: items 43 through 46 kpri comprise the hearing of persons interested in public works of march 5, 2019 the appeal of tentative map approval 630 natoma street. item 44 is the decision, and item 45 is the disapproval

decision, and 46 is the preparation of findings. >> president yee: colleagues, this item is withdrawn, so supervisor haney, do you have any remarks that you would like to share? >> supervisor haney: no, i would just like to ask for us to approve item 44 and table items 45 and 46. >> president yee: okay. and before we take action, do we have any members of the public who want to speak on this particular item? >> my name is luke stickney, and i am a resident of district six since 1993, and i've had a business there since 2004. i am 50% owner of this condominium development at 630 natoma street. unfortunately, i wasn't here last meeting because i was out of the country, but i was very

disappointed to here that this motion was stayed. i don't think that the supervisors understand that the cost -- how expensive it is to develop property in this town, and the extension of this decision added $25,000 in carrying costs to my project. so if the vote is going to be against item 44, i just want you guys to understand that as a resident of district six, i look at it as this is a vote against affordable housing. you're adding costs to the project by voting this project down. i'd like you to consider the facts that these decisions you make are adding more money to the condominiums that are being built in this town. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> president yee: okay. any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> president yee: supervisor haney made a motion to approve item 44 and to table items 45

and 46. is there a second? seconded by supervisor peskin. i believe we need to take a roll call on this one. >> clerk: that's correct, mr. president. [ro [roll call] >> clerk: on the motion to approve item 44 and table items 45 and 46 -- there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay.

item 44 is approved unanimously, and items 45 and 46 are tabled. >> president yee: madam clerk, please call items 47 through 50. >> clerk: public hearing of personed interested in the determination of exemption under environmental review under california environmental quality act issued by the planning department on 2831-2833 pierce street. >> president yee: okay.

colleagues, we have before us an appeal to the determination of exemption from an environmental review for the project at 2831-2833 pierce street in district two. for this hearing, we will be considering the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the planning department's environmental review determination for the project at 2831-2833 pierce street. then, without objection, we will proceed as follows: up to ten minutes for a presentation by the appellants or appellant's representative. up to two minutes for speakers in support of the p.u.'s, up to ten minutes for presentation by the planning department, up to ten minutes for the project sponsor or their representative, and two minutes

per speaker in opposition to the p.u.s, and finally, up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellants or appellant's representatives. colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding this way? seeing no objection, the public hearing is now open. supervisor stefani, do you have any remarks you would like to share? >> supervisor stefani: president yee, not at this time. i'll withhold until the end of the hearing. >> president yee: okay. and seeing no names of my colleagues on the roster, i'll now ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. you have up to ten minutes. >> i want to first thank the supervisors for giving me this chance to make a case for saving this historic building in my neighborhood. this is really a guest of san francisco governance, and i'm extremely grateful.

while trying to save this historic building that has stood as an integral part of the cow hollow neighborhood for 70 years, i'm trying to save special historic qualities of the neighborhood. as you can imagine, those are thinning year by year, and this is a story that is probably repeating itself across the city. i also just really quickly want to add, before i begin with specifics, that the owner can achieve his principle project goals while preserving the historic envelope of 2831 pierce street, so there's no reason to destroy the envelope itself in order to double the square footage, significantly enlarge the footprint of the building, and convert a two-unit building into a single-family home, so all of this can be achieved while

maintaining this historic envelope. so i think the most important document at this hearing is without a doubt the ceqa exemption determination, and the most important question that was raised in this document is whether 2831 pierce is a fully realized stream lined modern building rather than a partially realized stream lined modern building. or to use another term actually stated by the planning department, a variation. so while my appeal showed the fulfillment of three separate criteria that recognized -- well, for the recognition of a historic resource, the third criteria has been the focal point of all of our documentation and of my appeal and then also the hearing today. and that criteria is around design. and to state the exact definition of that criteria in the ceqa law, this is whether a

building embodies the distinctive characters of a type, period, region or method of construction. so the planning department, in its exemption determination, determined that 2831 pierce is not a fully realized stream lined modern building on the basis of the reports of two consultants who were commissioned by the owner to produce their work for the owner. so if you don't mind my reading just from the very first line of the only comments included in the ceqa determination, according to the supplement cal information for historic resource determination, the historic resource evaluation, and information found in the planning department files, so the document then just continues with a few descriptions of the building. i just wanted to point out that

rodrigo santos is the structural engineer on the 2831 project. some of you may also be familiar with mr. santos' name because he's currently being sued by the city for falsify be permit applications. richard brandy is the other person mentioned, his report, as having been the basis for the ceqa exemption determination. here's the cover letter of that report, and it states very clearly on the front that the report was conducted for kent p penwell, the owner of 2831 pierce. so i just wanted to note that the explicit bias in the consultant's work can be very easily imagined.

i think what's much less easy to understand and to imagine is why the planning department would use this work and pass it off as part of their own objective analysis. the planning department did add new material in their response, which is extremely helpful because it does represent some additional research, and it does therefore represent some objective analysis. and if it's possible, supervisors, i was hoping you might be able to turn to the last page of my appeal to look at the two photos at the top of that appeal letter which shows the subject property. what the planning department aimed to do in their response was to bolster the argument made in their exemption determination that the ocean

park motel pictured here is an outstanding example of stream lined modern architecture. this is a building built by conrad kett. however, they argued that 2831 pierce, built by the same architect, conrad kett, is only a variation, and they did this in their response by providing a list of primary defining features of stream lined architecture. i hope you don't mind if i just read seven of these features that are very clearly present in this subject building, 2831 pierce, and i'm going to add an eighth that i do feel they left out. so if you do look at these photos, you will see speed lines, which are bands of horizontal typing. you will see horizontal ribbon

windows, smooth stucco walls, wraparound windows at the corner. you can also see a general absence of historically derived orientation, and the asymmetrical facade. and the eighth item which was left out but has been included in other city planning documentation is a recessed entry covered by a cantilevered canopy. so you can see that clearly in 2831 pierce. so if we are to get into the real details of whether this is a fully realized stream lined modern building or a partially realized, i think if you count eight primary features out of a list of 12. it would be only fair to say this is in fact a stream lined

modern building. as i stated in my appeal, stream lined modern is a very rare and a special type of architecture in san francisco with very few examples across the city. i had highlighted in my appeal letter a california state document that discussed the very special nature of stream lined modern and sought historic resource status for the coca-cola bottling factory at 1500 mission street. i was really surprised to learn that since the time of my writing this appeal letter, that state document has been taken down from the planning website, to no longer be found anywhere on the web, and the coca-cola bottling factory has been largely destroyed by an important mixed-use development. i also learned a few other very extraordinary things last week since the continuance was

requested, which is that this very large mixed-use development that gutted the coca-cola bottling factory will contain the new offices of the planning department and this mixed-use development is being financed by deutsche bank, the pierce project owner's place of work. so i couldn't help but wonder is it at all possible that the owner of 2831 pierce, as a deutsche bank employee, got easier approval for his project than others might have. and i just wanted to finish on one note. one of the principle purposes of a planning department is to enhance the unique qualities of a city and to guide the city in a way that preserves its cultural heritage. for disclosure, i happen to

know this because i have an urban planning degree myself. so i'm asking you to help preserve one of these rare modern stream lined buildings, and at the very least, to preserve its envelope. it should not be possible for the planning department in combination with deutsche bank, to demolish two modern steam lined buildings in one year. thank you. >> president yee: thank you. are there any questions from my colleagues? i will ask if there are any public comments specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal? seeing none, then, the public comment for that is closed.

so i guess we should be calling up representative or the owner. i'm sorry. now, we have to have up to ten minutes for the planning

department. >> good afternoon, president yee and members of the board of supervisors. i am stephanie scisneros from the planning department, and joining me is debra dwyer, principle planner. the item before you is a categorical exemption for 2831 through 2833 pierce street. it is between union and green streets. the proposed projects includes interior and exterior

alterations to the subject building and also includes a horizontal and vertical addition. the resulting building would be four stories and 40 feet tall and would continue to provide two residential units. and just as one note of correction, the engineer on file for the proposed project is no longer rodrigo santos. the project has undergone substantial modifications since it was initially submitted in 2016. the project was originally proposed to demolish the existing two-unit resident and construct a new two-unit resident but was later modified to no longer include demolition. three discretionary review applications were filed on the modified project. at the discretionary review hearing before the planning commission, planning staff acknowledged that the three d.r. filers and the project sponsor had come to an agreement on modifications to the project to address concerns raised by the d.r. filers. the currently proposed project

is the result of this agreement. the decision before the board today is whether to uphold the department's determination that the project is exempt from environmental review or to overturn the determination and return the project to the department for additional environmental review. the guidelines under the california environmental quality act, or ceqa, provide a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have significant impact on the environment and are there exempt from ceqa review. specifically class one for existing facilities allows for the modifications to an existing structure that involve interior and exterior alterations and additions under 10,000 square feet. the project fits within this exemption class as the additional square footage provided would be approximately 3,000 square feet. additionally, the ceqa giet

lines specified exceptions to the use of categorical exceptions. for class one, the exceptions include whether the project could have a accumulative impact, have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances, damage a seenic resource, be located on a hazardous waste site or would adversely affect a historical resource. although not ex-mistily stated in the appeal letter, the department understands that the appellants disagree with the department ease determination that the existing building is not a historical resource. as part of the environmental review process and due to the age of the building, the department required a historic resource evaluation of the property. to aid in that, a qualified consultant prepared a historic resource evaluation. the department reviewed this report as well as a supplemental information for historic resource application submitted along with additional

information sent to the department from a concerned neighborhood. this latter information was also provided in the appeal letter. as part of the department's standard evaluation methodology for potential historic resources, the department assessed whether or not the subject building would qualify for inclusion on the california register of historical resources by meeting any of the four significant criteria. the four criteria are as follows: in association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad path of california history, the structure embodying distinctive characteristics of architectural design or whether the property has yielded or may yield information important to history or prehistory.

as articulated in the appeal response, the department reviewed all submitted information and found that the subject property does not meet any of these criteria. no significant events were found to have occurred at the subject property, none of the subject property's owners or occupants were identified as having made significant contributions to local, state or national history. the property was not found to be an outstanding example of architect conrad kett's work, nor that he was such an important architect to influence modern state or local trends. here is a brief slide showing the character defining features of stream line modern architecture which include rounded corners and curb surfaces, horizontal ribbon windows, and curved metal

balconet balconettes and railings. it does not exhibit the horizontal orientation, curved surfaces or horizontal ribbon windows that one would expect of this style. here is some additional images of fine examples of this architectural style located in san francisco. while the substance property is located within the boundaries of the cow hollow neighborhood, it is not located within the boundaries of any identified historic district. the subject property does not fit within the significance criteria of this district nor

does its construction date fit within the identified period of significance, which is 1888 through 1914. in reviewing the documents and information submitted, the department concluded that the building at 2831 through 2833 pierce street does not meet any of the criteria and is not eligible for listing in the california register. as such, the property is not a historical resource under ceqa. therefore, the department respectfully recommends that the board uphold the finding and deny the ceqa determination. -- finding of the planning department and deny the ceqa determination. thank you. >> president yee: thank you. are there any questions? supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for that presentation. in the independent work that the department did relative to

the roberts motel, do you want to respond to that? >> with regard to -- >> supervisor peskin: seven of the elements that the appellant brought up? >> sure. so if i can go back to this slide. we've looked at the primary character defining features as well as the secondary character defining features of the stream lined modern style which are included in the department's response, and we're able to identify that there are certain features that the subject property does carry over, however, it's not a majority expression of these detailed combined. >> supervisor peskin: what i'm specifically referring to is the last page, in the upper left-hand corner. i don't have a hard copy, but

was the motel in the outer sunset, out by sloat boulevard which was designed by the same individual that was the contention of miss anderson? >> right. so that motel -- the design of the motel does include numerous other features of the stream lined modern architectural stri style and is one that we considered more of the subject style as opposed to the subject property. >> supervisor peskin: and relative to the contention of the appellant about -- well, let me state -- ask this differently. when somebody prepares this historical analysis, is it prepared for the department or is it prepared for the project sponsor? >> it is prepared for the department, and the first submittal of the report is submitted directly to the department. >> supervisor peskin: so -- but

miss anderson showed that the report was actually prepared for the property owner, not for the department. >> it was, so it is the -- the consultant is hired by the property owner, however, the report is prepared on the grounds that the department is requesting the report to be prepared, so it's actually prepared for the department and it's submitted to the department prior to or at the same time as it's submitted to the owner or the requester. >> supervisor peskin: does other staff want to add or subtract? >> yes. debra dwyer, through the area. so we do -- i do believe that we should clear up our procedures, but the way that our process is setup, the

analysis is prepared for the department and it is scoped and reviewed extensively by the presentation staff at the department. however, the property owner does pay for the report? however, everything is reviewed completely by the department and we would make comments if we disagreed or found errors that it wasn't up to standards. >> supervisor peskin: and is the professional instructed by the project sponsor or the project sponsor's people? >> they may -- it depends. they may be contacted by the property owner initially, but the scope of the work must be approved by the department. >> supervisor peskin: okay. and the appellant also raised some questions with regard to

mr. santos who is not a historic preservation professional as allegedly an engineer, or maybe for a while longer. did mr. santos hire mr. brandy? does mr. brandy work for mr. santos? that's kind of what i read in there. >> so i'd like to clarify, there were actually two different submittals? one is the historic resource evaluation report, which was prepared by mr. brandy, and i do believe the property owner contacted that -- him from our qualified list, but we can clarify that. the second is that we do require supplemental historic information, and that is a separate application which is sometimes prepared by a project sponsor acting on behalf of the property owner? in this case, that supplemental packet which involves, you

know, collecting san born maps, going through the building permit history, compiling a bunch of resource information from the public library or other sources, and we have detailed instructions on how to do that on our website, so that could easily -- that, i believe, was done by mr. santos. >> supervisor peskin: and he does not have to be on the list of qualified historic preservation professionals? >> no. a property owner can do that themselves. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i will say that it did jump out at me, when it said santos on there, it made me worry. >> president yee: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president yee. just to follow up on a few questions asked by supervisor peskin. did the project department hire someone that the planning department recommended? is there a list of people that

you hire. >> with regard to historic preservation consultants? >> supervisor stefani: yes. >> we do have a list of qualified consultants that have been vetted through by the department, and in this situation, we allow project sponsors to -- or property owners to choose from that list of qualified consultants. >> supervisor stefani: so in doing that, would you agree that a project sponsor would likely rely on the opinion of that person as to be someone -- something that the planning department would approve of? >> generally, yes with the understanding that we may not agree with the consultant's findings or we may have some level of discussion as to where the information they produced was received from or requested any additional information we feel is missing but it pertinent to our review. >> supervisor stefani: what if a project sponsor hired someone you'd never heard of or wasn't

on your list? >> i believe we would do some some level of background research to figure out if this person -- if the consultant meets our standards and meets the secretary of the interior standards, which is what we base our qualifications on for including consultants on our list? we may take the information provided in that particular report and ask it to be peer reviewed by a qualified consultant that is on our list? but we wouldn't completely disregard the information, we would just want to verify that the information is accurate. >> supervisor stefani: and based on some of the questions that came up in this case, did you seek a second opinion on the historic resource evaluation? >> we did seek a second opinion from a dokomomo organization?

it's a local advocacy nonprofit that works towards preserving and enhancing the knowledge of modern architecture, both locally and globally? we did consult with the northern california chapter of this organization who concurred with the findings that this building is not a significant architectural resource. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. >> president yee: okay. seeing no other questions, i think i will call up the project sponsor or the real party interest to speak for up to ten minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, president yee and board members, tar asullivtar -- tar asullivan on behalf of the

project sponsors. the issue before you is whether a callical class one exemption is supported by substantial evidence. the may 2018 exemption found that the project would be have a significant impact on the environment. it determined in september 2017 that the 1949 building did not qualify as a historic resource. as such, the alterations cannot have a significant impact under ceqa. the department's preservation experts determined this based on the historic resource evaluation prepared by a qualified preservation consultant, the history of the cow hollow neighborhood and historical documents in the department's files and the same data provided in this appeal which was provided by the appellant to planning. the appellant in its short appeal filing contends that the department erred in its analysis that the department is a historic resource. they still believe that the project qualifies for the

california department of historical resources. for the board to uphold this appeal, you must find that the appellant has provided significant evidence or new information that the board did not have to consider in its review. under the ceqa guidelines, substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable suassumption predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts. they go onto state what does not constitute that evidence. the appellants have not provided any of this evidence. they submitted a three-page document with much of the same information that was submitted to the department in september 2017. the new facts supplied here with photographs of the property, its neighbors, and a

photo of a building by the same architect. there are statements that the property has fine horizontal and corner detailing, but these are mere opinions, nowhere in the statement does the appellant provide findings by a state historic expert or information provided to the department in 2017. the new substantial evidence provided by the appellant amounts to mere photographs and unsubstantiated opinion. if you review the preservation team review form from september 2017, you will see that the staff did a thorough analysis of this property. their analysis is based on conclusions drawn from the facts, including information supplied by the appellant as well as staff, and experts.

their analysis more than adequately supports the conclusion that the property is not a historic resource. given the thoroughness of their department's review, appellant fails to provide new substantial evidence to the contrary. under ceqa, the fact that the appellant thinks the property should be a historic resource is not sufficient substantial evidence that would lead to a different conclusion. based on all of this, the appeal should be denied and the categorical exemption upheld. the appellant has not provided any new evidence beyond mere speculation and opinion. we respectfully ask that the board deny the appeal and uphold the exemption. i'm available for any questions if you have any. thank you. >> president yee: any questions? okay. seeing no names on the roster, colleagues, at this time, i will invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal to

please come forward. you have up to two minutes. okay. no speakers? then public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> president yee: lastly, i would invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you will have up to three minutes. >> at the danger of repeating myself, i want to say again, we're really just haggling over the quality of this stream lined modern building based on facts provided by the planning department in their response which are the primary defining features of stream line modern. so i really do implore all the supervisors to look at that list. i found eight that are clearly

evident in this conrad kett building, and i also wanted to add to some of the rather derogatory comments of the representative of the project sponsor. if richard brandy is an expert, given his master's in architectural preservation, then i could be considered as expert, as well, given my master's in urban planning, so i hope that does at least add a little bit of weight to what i think is a very fair and objective assessment that this building is as valuable as the ocean park motel, which was considered an outstanding of fully realized stream line modern by the planning department. so they're hedging on the value of 2831 pierce, and i do not know why. perhaps they could tell us. >> president yee: okay. thank you. this public hearing, item

number 47b, has been heard and now closed. we -- 47, has been heard and now closed. colleagues, we now have items 48, 49, and 50 before us. supervisor stefani, do you have any final remarks? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president yee. colleagues, as you know, the only issue before us is whether the planning department correctly issued the categorical exemption in this case, and in my opinion, there's no substantial evidence that has been presented that would warrant preparation of further environmental review. i say this based on not only the first report that was -- that relied upon by the planning department, the h.r.a. report, but also in a follow up e-mail which i read something

from dokomomo, where he said conrad t. kett has not been identified as a master architect. none of the exemptions or exceptio exceptions specified in ceqa guidelines prohibiting the use of a categorical exemption are applicable to the project. specifically, the project does not meet the definition of a historical resource under ceqa guidelines. property is located out of the cow hollow first bay traditional historic district which was previously found to be eligible for listing on the california register. none of the property's occupan occupants were have found to make significant contributions, and while the subject property exhibits some of the identifies features of stream lined modern style such as horizontal orientation and an asymmetrical

facade, it does not include enough of the described features in my opinion to be considered a fully realized example. and therefore, i believe the appellant has not provided any substantial evidence or expert opinion to refute the conclusions of the planning department based on not only the planning department's review but the second opinion that i referred to. for these reasons, i agree with the planning department's determination that the project is callicly exempt under ceqa. i would like to make a motion to move -- categorically exempt under ceqa. i would like to make a motion to move item 47 forward and table items 49 and 50.

>> president yee: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i would echo those statements, and say the only thing i disagree with is having found the property designed by a master architect. but i think the dokomomo review sealed it for me, so i can -- i can vote on this in the affirmative. >> president yee: okay. thank you. so there's been a motion made by supervisor stefani and seconded by supervisor peskin? can we take this motion without objection? without objection, item 48 is approved and items 49 and 50 are tabled. colleagues, the item is finally affirmed. madam clerk, let's go to items 51 and 52.

[agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> president yee: okay, colleagues, can we take these items same house, same call? >> clerk: i believe supervisor haney has amendments to item 52. >> president yee: okay. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: yes. we have very minor amendment at

the suggestion of the city attorney. i believe it's just passed out to everybody. it's going to delete an incorrect reference on page two to the historic preservation commission's findings, and i want to move to make those amendments. >> president yee: okay. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i -- that's fine. i just want to say for the record that this historic preservation commission did review this and did recommend it, so this is just an issue with regard to the planning code section 302 findings. i didn't want anybody to get the impression that the historic preservation commission which has jurisdiction over some of the these issues did not review it. they did. >> president yee: okay. so any other comments? seeing none, then, let's take item 51 first. can we take this item same house, same call? seeing no objection, then, this

item, this is passed unanimously, first reading. [gavel]. >> president yee: item 52, colleagues, there's been a motion to make an amendment by supervisor haney. is there a second? seconded by supervisor walton. can we take the amendments without objection? without objection, then, the motion passes for amendments. colleagues, can we take this same house, same call for item number 52 as amended? okay. supervisor haney, are you speaking still? okay. then without objection, then, this item 52 is -- this ordinance is passed as amended. [gavel]. >> president yee: -- on first reading. okay. where are we? let's see -- oh, madam clerk, please call items 53 through 55 together. >> clerk: mr. president, we have items 51 and 52. we just did those, correct, and

so item -- >> president yee: 53 through 55 together. >> clerk: 53 through 55 were considered by the rules commit ae at a regular meeting on monday, march 4 and were forwarded as committee reports and were recommended as amended with new titles. item 53 is a motion to approve the mayor's nomination of richard johns to the historic preservation committee for a term enter ending december 31, 2022, and for item 52, motion to approve the mayor's nomination of kate black to the his torque preservation commit, term ending december 31, 2022, and item 55, motion to approve the mayor's nomination of

andrew wolfram to the his toric preservation committee for a term ending december 31, 2022. >> president yee: thank you. can we take this same house, same call? seeing no objection, the items are unanimously approved.

. [please stand by] . >> supervisor ronen: the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: sorry. wrong button. thank you. okay. i have two items today that i'd -- colleagues, that i'd like to introduce, the first of which is a resolution, and thank you to all your cosponsors for supporting that resolution, peskin, brown, walton, ronen, and fewer. this has to do with the ongoing negotiations between ufc local 648 and walgreens.

this has dragged on for over a year. we are urging in this resolution that both parties, both walgreens boots alliance engage in good faith negotiations. in 2018, they published its fourth quarter earnings fiscal report, and sales were 11.5 billion, and they've -- $131.5 billion, and they've been at the table negotiating with our union brothers and sisters for over a year. so our resolution urges with respect to wages, paid time off, health care, and no take aways, so we urge both parties to engage in good faith

negotiations and reach a conclusion. second, in both a follow up to supervisor ronen and i called for a few months ago, and we had most recently an incident that happened in my district at balboa high school. we had a hearing, that hearing was filed as it pertained to the memorandum of understanding between unified school district and the police department. we've been informed from the police department and the school district that there have been some ongoing improvements. we would like to bring those improvements in conversation into the light of day. i know that president yee has called for the convening of a joint committee and reigniting a joint committee between the school district and the board of supervisors. that will be happening in the next few months, so hopefully there will be one of the first -- this will be one of the first items heard there, and the police department will enlighten us in how this

memorandum of understanding has been utilized, improved, and strengthened as a result of this. we think that some really positive things have come out of these conversations, and we wanted to have a follow up hearing on that. those are the hearings that i wanted to ask. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor. >> supervisor safai: oh, just one other thing. that was myself and supervisor walton that are calling for that hearing between the school district and the police department on the m.o.u. the rest i submit. >> clerk: supervisor stefani. okay. thank you. supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you, madam clerk. today, i'm introducing two resolutions that will enable

the construction of 167 units of affordable housing of the sunnydale hope sf project. each ak required the acquisition of two small parcels of land located at the current end of sunrise way adjacent to the sunnydale project. the acquired land will be used in the construction of an extension of sunrise way into the sunnydale project. development has worked with mercy housing to communicate with homeowners with a translator and to retain a pro bono attorney representing the homeowners interest. the agreement and terms are identical for each homeowner. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor. president yee? >> president yee: thank you. i'm submitting ledgislation to create the committee that would

include the board of supervisors, board of education and the board of the community college, so the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: yes, thank you. today, i have two pieces. one is an in memorial, and i'm so sad about this particular person because i admired him from afar. he's an artist. we lost a loving member of our community last month, mr. eugene e. white. on february 8, 2019, mr. white transcended with his wife by his side. he was a devoted husband of 48 years, daughter tracey, grandfather, friend, artist, and neighbor. eugene e. white was born in 1933 in rural arkansas -- or

arkansas. the son of a share cropper, he studied agriculture and often worked in the cotton fields with his father. though he received no formal training, eugene showed an incredible aptude for painting at an early age. he chased his creative pursuits all the way to detroit where he completed design sketches for cadillac. in 1958, he continued west, settling in san francisco and starting his own business. he loved the independence of freedom of being his own boss, so he opened the first black owned art gallery in the city. white's first public art show was in golden gate park, haul of flowers, in 1964. mr. white's artwork and writings would carrie him across the united states and the world.