with regard to the geotechnical issues of the adjacent building the department of building inspection is responsible for ensuring the proposed project does not undermine existing structures. as confirmed by the building department projects of this size and scope require special instructions that are legally mandate the building code. monitoring of the building's adjacent to the construction site to establish survey points on the building's adjacent to the site due to the construction period are commonly undertaken as standard practice for similar projects and can be reasonably expected as confirmed by the geotechnical consultant that monitoring recommended in the report will be conducted. the cpe's conclusion the project would not result in individual or cumulative significant impacts related to soil, ground water or other geological

hazards that were not identified in the eastern neighborhoods peir is based on substantial evidence and the appellant has not proven otherwise the appellant has to the provided sufficient evidence there's been a failure to meet see qua therefore the planning department recommends they reject the appellant's appeal. this concludes my presentation and the department staff is available for your questions. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. sorry we had to break but i wanted to follow order. i think you had an answer, ma'am? >> i wanted to ask a follow-up question. thank you. i want to make sure i understand correctly your first comment. so you're basically saying state

law says once you've reached the density that's analyzed in the plan it's no longer valid and you need additional environmental review if there's additional units built after the number of units anticipated in the plan were met, is that what you're saying? >> again, lisa gibson, environmental review officer, with all due respect, that's not at all what i was saying. what i was saying related to development density is for a project consistent with the development density established by a prior rezoning or community planning effort, that project is mandated to undergo a stream lined environmental review process. you were asking about in that question there the overall development that could occur under a rezoning effort in this case eastern neighborhoods. so when that planning effort was

undertaken as part of the environmental review process, we developed projections of what maybe a reasonable anticipated of growth that could occur under the eastern neighborhoods rezoning. that was an information we used for the purpose of conducting the environmental impact analysis. those projections does not establish a cap on the amount of development that could occur in neighborhoods and did not establish a cap or expiration date on the adequacy of the e.i.r. there is no expiration date to the adequacy of a programmatic e.i.r. for clear, this is supported by state case law and it is and there's guidelines when we must undertake additional environmental review that is guide ceqa guidelines 16162 if

there is a new discretionary action for the project in this case, eastern neighborhoods rezoning. to address the concern that i'm hearing and i've heard it before and i understand why speakers today and in other hearings as well as members of this board are very concerned about the growth that is occurring in eastern neighborhoods. i'm hearing loud and clear and understand the concerns about the affects that growth is having that is undesirable. some of those affects are physical and environmental affects. what we prepared for neighborhoods introduced undesirable environmental impact could occur if the rezoning was approved. the city went ahead despite the

environmental affects there were other benefits deemed to outweigh the adverse environmental effects and overriding considerations that led to the city approving that area plan. what ceqa requires is not that we ignore the question of whether there are changes in our evaluation of environmental affects. under the streamlined review, mandated by state law for projects within an area plan, consistent with the development density established by that plan, we must consider did we fail to identify a significant environmental effect that may be peculiar to the subsequent project or its location, the project site. so that is the review we must do. we're focussed on the subsequent project itself and not the rezoning effort and the effects of the city policies as it

relates to land use controls within a broader area. where it does relate and i understand the complexity of the ceqa analysis can be confusing. we are mandated to consider not just project specific effects but cumulative impacts. under the subsequent review we do as required by state law we consider are there cumulative effects the project might contribute to that were not previously identified. and if so, would the project's contribution be cumulative. that's the robust analysis we do for every project for which we do a community plan evaluation. in doing that, we use updated current information about the existing circumstances that are on the street today in the neighborhood today. the example of the t.n.c.s.

we acknowledge t.n.c.s are not a vehicle type on the street in 2008 when we certified the eastern neighborhood e.i.r. they're a vehicle type and as part of our updated traffic impact analysis methodology we have taken counts of actual projects and counted t.n.c.s on the street in our current transportation methodology takes those into account. we're not relying on the analysis done in the eastern neighborhood's e.i.r. as the basis for conclusion without further consideration. we're updating our analysis and as we have explained in our appeal response, there are no new peculiar impacts the project would have that were not previously identified and disclosed in the e.i.r. the project will have significant environmental fkts

and there is -- effects and there is mitigation required to address those effects. so while the state law mandates we disclose those effects and the purpose of ceqa is twofold to disclose them to decision makers to take them into account and minimize the effects whenever possible. this process has enabled us to do so. as a land use matter and policy is there something the city should be doing to address effects occurring maybe outside of ceqa? that's a policy matter. but for our purposes here today on this appeal, we feel find that our determination is based on substantial evidence and we have done a thorough review and i do have to say that i really respect and appreciate the comments and the efforts of the

appellants with whom we have interacted before and had heartfelt discussions and i hope those will continue. i really need to clarify what i'm speaking about is in the context of environmental review and the state law ceqa which is very different than the broader concerns this board does have to address.

>> that the project that would need to be amended and there is action taken with regard to

that. it does not relate to staleness in terms of the desire to have updated, current information to ensure that we are thoroughly adequately analyzing environmental effects of projects in eastern neighborhoods. we have a mechanism for doing that and that is the community plan evaluation process that the state law allows for us to do. we are doing that. >> supervisor yee: supervisor peskin. >> ms. gibson may have answered this and i think it's set for in their response number 5, which relates to ceqa guidelines section 1-5183. i see this through the lens of what i think supervisor ronen is trying to talk about, which is changed circumstances. so, as it relates to this c.p. c.p.e., that tears off of the peir, the argument that find

compelling when they say 7.68 visits a day which we in this changed culture is not true, you are arguing that cumulatively, these do not -- because we made findings of over raiding considerations, these do not rise to the level. is that what you are saying? chris jensen is looking at me like he is all over the map. >> supervisor, peskin, i will do my best to answer your question. it's in deed a head scratcher. i mean that to say that it is complex. i don't mean to be facetious about this question at all. it's a very serious one regarding changed circumstances. the seek what guidelines acknowledges that changed

circumstances can lead to a change in the determination and impact would occur and in regards to a given project. when we're in the process of preparing a community plan evaluation. if that case, we look at is there anything about those changed circumstances that results in a new peculiar impact. if that is the case, then we would be required to do an environmental impact report if we could not avoid that impact if it was unavoidable. an example of this, is when we have a historic resource of historic structure that is proposed for demolition, that was not previously identified in eastern neighborhoods, where we took the approach of laying out signature signified newly deterd

historic resource, that would require an e.i.r. otherwise, with regards to the conditions that relate to circulation and deliveries, those conditions, as they have changed, and we acknowledge they had changed in relation to the different ways in which people get around and have goods delivered to them instead of going out and brick and mortar shopping, all of that has been reflected in our updated transportation impact analysis guidelines which were undertaken with robust analogy. we have undertaken to the best of our ability in terms of meeting professional standards, based on facts. we have to base it on facts. we have these analysis and these rates and based on surveys that were conducted in recent years

and not in 2008. >> i appreciate that and i was trying weave that into my basketball but what i'm really asking is, ok, acknowledging that baseline is much more significant than what was adopted in weight. you say in 2008 they have overriding considerations so it it was a negative impact and we have new numbers and it's a negative impact now so net net it's ok. i would argue. it's more negative and therefore you've got to analyze an environmental impact because if it's changed cumulatively, you do this 62-unit project and that 50-unit project with a totally changed traffic circulation

behavior, don't we have a higher level of impact. the overriding considerations that i voted for 11 years ago, were lesser impact. when i was making those overriding consideration what's we were balancing the net good and the impacts that as decision makers we are informed about and as i am now looking at this cpe, don't i say well hold on a second, these are actually bigger environmental impacts so am i, can you help me out here ms. gibson. >> i will do my best. the question you have as i understand it is what if the environmental impacts of the eastern neighborhoods rezoning are worse than what we thought they were at the time that the eastern neighborhoods e.i.r. were certified and the plan was approved. do i have that right?

>> correct. >> so, if that were the case and i'm going to say theore theoret, we would for subsequent projects before the planning department or the city for approval, we take a look at are there any new significant impacts that were not previously disclosed or substantially more severe than or that were not previously disclosed, and if so, then we must identify the significant impact and if it can be mitigate we can do a c.p. plus a mitigate negative declaration for the project and we're looking at the project impact. understate law, we're not revisiting and trying to have an individual project mitigate an over all cumulative effect that the eastern neighborhoods rezoning could have. i want to be clear here that

when we go beyond the theoretical, we have not heard evidence there is a -- we have not found any evidence that we have evidence to support our determination there is not a new significant impact cumulative or otherwise of the eastern neighborhoods rezoning that we did not previously disclose. i understand that the effects of the rezoning and the effects being experienced on the ground are negative and adverse. we would be happy to talk with the specifics about what are the conditions that are being observed in the city that relate to cumulative effects. we have to identify we're obligated to look at the cumulative effects of what son the ground today when we look at a individual project and we look at the project's contribution and if it's a significant effect, is the project contribution considerable and must they mitigate that. and so, we are taking a look today at over all effects. we have not seen anything worse

in fact, you know, we're quite satisfied that in fact there were many cases where we did a worse-case review. if you read the e.i.r. the effects identified are significant and unavoidable and some topics and significant we have mitigation measures to address them. if the sense is that those mitigation measures are not in fact adequately addressing the signatursignificant impacts of s considered and approved, we would welcome to hear evidence to support those assertions because we have evidence upon which we base our analysis. it would help to us deal in specifics to understand us. and you know, we are very open minded as we conduct our review and we are consistent -- continuously updating our methodology to take into account

new information as it becomes available. thank you. >> supervisor yee: any other questions? no. i guess we're going to end this part of the hearing. now i'd like to provide the sponsor. project sponsor to come up and go ahead and present your case. you have 10 minutes. >> thank you. on behalf of the project response o staff has done a great job to the degree is just to emphasize some key points. i've detailed in staff and our materials the use of the cpe under ceqa in this case. the arguments regarding geo technical issues are not supported expert opinion and

have responded about the the project geo technical consultant or relevant staff. argument is been considered and rejected by this board three times in the last three years including last october just to remind everyone. so the board's denial of this appeal would be consistent with past precedent with respect to eastern neighborhoods. in contrast, upholding the appeal would threaten housing units in the pipeline or have been recently improved reliant on the eastern neighborhood e.i.r. the analysis for evaluating the inadequacy is straight forward. first, project consistent with the area plan, the density of the area plan, i.r. do not undergo initial analysis beyond c.p.e. unless they're peculiar to a project and site. secondly, the process students to figure out if projects specific impacts were not

identified in the eastern neighborhoods e.i.r. so the only project-specific impacts that the appellants raised have to do with geo tech y'altechnical concerns. i want to make things clear. first, this project does not have a basement. a previous iteration had a basement. we're using a mat slab foundation. as a conservative number, we're saying we're excavating four feet but really the mat slab is only two feet six. four feet is adding an additional feet for conservative ceqa purposes. we will not touch the water tables. the drought showed it's built 12 to 21 feet bowl grade and based on the input, the highest level is expected to reach now is eight feet below grade service. we are studying it at four feet and we only have a two-foot slab foundatiofoundation. no deep water is conducted on

this site. our geo tech y'all consultant engineer is here in case you have questions this morning. thank you. this afternoon. with respect to the neighboring historic buildings on woodward street, the c.p.e. did conclude the project did not have the ability to negatively impact these buildings, however, the project sponsor is taking on industry standard construction monitoring of the existing buildings and this is to protect both those buildings and the project sponsor, right. we want to understand does the project in fact have any impact on those buildings and both parties want to know that so that's why it's very standard in practice to protect all parties to do thorough construction monitoring of adjacent historic buildings. i also want to mention that we worked very closely with the woodward street neighbors. this is a group named of neighborhoods on woodward street to protect the historic district of woodward street as well as the historic buildings themselves. and they are in support of the

project through our work with them. we're very proud of that and speaks to the issue of protection of those historic buildings. now again, the appeal brings up a number of argument that's have been brought up in pasta peels regarding the eastern neighborhoods and staleness issue. and beyond just this board denying those arguments in the past, the san francisco superior court has also rejected that argument and in addition that was taken up to the court of appeal and they upheld the superior courts' decision and what the superior court said is that simply saying that there's more growth than was expected in the plan does not automatically undermine the use of the c.p.e. you have to actually point toll significant increased environmental impact as a result of that increased development. and so you can't just say there's more development than we expected. of course, here, we don't have evidence to say that new

significant impact that weren't recognized bit e.i.r. are there in fact, take for example, one of the discussions that staff placed in their response which is based on recent project there are traffic reviews with the t.n.c. and what is actually found is that in general, traffic levels are at the same level or maybe even a little bit bull owe who would have been expect inside 2008 and in addition to that, this project under the old analysis it would have been expected to have 53 peak level trips to this site and actually based on the recent studies in the mission, the conclusion that the peak hour trips are now at 27. beyond -- there's been no evidence showing that there's more impacts we have evidence

showing there's no impacts or less impacts. >> there are hundreds of affordable units over all in the mission currently in the process relying on the eastern neighborhood e.i.r. for the e.p.e. clearance so undermining the e.i.r. on this issue would undermine it for all projects in the process right now. so, in summary, the appellants have raised no ceqa issues of concern. it's been confirmed bit project geo technical consultant and city staff. the port has rejected attempts to invalue date all the eastern neighborhoods e.i.r. and we ask you to do the same thing here today and deny the appeal. thank you for your time. >> supervisor yee: supervisor. >> i have a couple questions for you. first i wanted to ask about the agreement you made with the woodward street neighbors specifically, not what you talked about in terms of the

historic preservation but the traffic coming and street scape improvements. i am just wondering how those agreements will be enforced? >> so, we have a private written agreement with the woodward street neighbors which object la gates the project sponsor to -- when they go to file for their street improvement permit which you would typically do and we have to do anyway for sidewalks and bringing everything up to current standards, we're obligated by that agreement to implement, propose and with the city's approval we can't guarantee it but we have to pursue and propose the improvements agreed won with the woodward street neighbors and it's that private agreement that they have the ability to take that agreement and say we bring it under contract law and that we reached it. should we not fulfill those obligations. >> we have seen in so many of these projects that after the entitlement process that the owners sells the project with

the entitlements. does that agreement -- that won't follow the project then their only recourse could be to sue the current owner of the property? >> i believe we've got an express provision saying it applies to successors. >> it does, ok. that's good. and then i do have a couple questions and geo tech expert who you said was here. good afternoon. >> hi. >> greg shields. >> thank you. >> so, you saw the appellant's presentation and they had showed photos that indicate that construction at 1801, 1863 mission which are just a-half a block away have been plagued by excessive water and there are many places in the mission that have in this way and their concern, as you know, is that your analysis is inadequate

because we've been in a long-term drought. so can you speak a little bit more how you're confident that we're not going to hit the water floor even in good or even regular rainfall years? >> sure. i've been working in san francisco for close to 40 years and i'm working actually on the armory and been working on it off and on since the early 2000s. i actually worked on the cathedral across the street from us. i'm very familiar with this soil conditions and the groundwater conditions. so what we do is we know we have a snapshot when we do our investigations. sometimes we do it when it's try in september and october and sometimes we do it during the rainy season. we always know that the groundwater fluctuates. so what we do is we take the measurement we have during the construction, we look for monitoring wells, whatever data we have, ideally the highest

groundwater occurred in 2005 and then during the el nino years in 1997 and 1998. we see how much the groundwater fluctuates overtime. we new during a drought, we always want to have design for the highest level we think it will ever get. basically we have measurements and we look at all the data in the area. when it's the highest and that's the number we pick for the design groundwater. i'm confident it will not come up to the ground because i think there's the concern there is that they're blocking drainages to the bay and so fourth. as we mentioned, this is at grade. those drainages, i mean, all the buildings in san francisco and this area that new buildings will have some sort of ground improvement, which is what we're proposing makes it's on i can la

fie ablliquefyable soil. so basically the groundwater flows around those. when they mention that there's rivers and streams it's not really rivers and streams, it's still soil. sometimes the soil is a little more permeable. this was filled with sand and it was dumped on top of sand. there was in river or creek under the site. >> supervisor yee: any other questions? i see none. so, i'd like to invite the members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal and in support of the project to please come forward. you have up to two minutes.

first speaker, please. >> hello. good to see you again. this is my second time speaking in front of you guys so hell o i just want to say we need your help. the black community. we need all of your guyses help. everyone who is white or who has white privilege. we need your help. you guys are the ones who have the white privilege of the skin that you were born with even you guys back here. everyone who has the white skin privilege. we need your help. the black community needs your help. i need your help. i'm battling homelessness. i just met someone whose mom just died today because she was battling homelessness and they just bought someone and i had to break up the fight because of the anger kind the gentrification that is happening. if you have your white skin privilege that can help our society, black america, mexican america, asian america, indian

america, they did not create this america. white america did. and it's on the backs of the blacks and mexicans that this america has been created on and it inter twines in every layer of our society. and we need your help. we can't do this anymore. look at tenderloin, the containment zone. look at how your black brothers and sisters are living. you guys are the ones that can change this. it's not us. i can't do anything. i truly can't. it takes you guys. please, help us. this gentrification is killing us. the native indians are already almost demolished and the blacks

are right behind them if they're not in prison already. help me. help us. please. i beg you. i beg you. >> supervisor yee: thank you. so, is there anybody that would like to speak in support of the project. seeing none. public comment is now closed. lastly, i'd like to invite the appellant or the representatives to present a rebuttal argument. you have three minutes. >> people don't understand that there has been no study about what happens when we dewater this whole area and the cumulative study of all the new building that's have come in

since 2012 dewatering. why are we seeing sinkholes? where do these occur? what is going to happen of the we're not so concerned with -- we understand that there's no basements and there's an old brick foundation and there's an elevator shaft and there's garbage there that needs to be excavated and soil needs to be remediated and that might require dewatering. we do know because no one has dug up the parking lot and started digging there. and this whole when they now

what was going on. here. why did they unload it on the project sponsor. they got rid of it. it's the impact that have been studied yet. what if it causes harm to this project? that is what environmental study is about and why is it not being done? why do you not take the things that you know and make accumulative changes and make

those study this is addition to the plan e.i.r. this community needs you to do that. and why do the supervisors not require this? why do we keep coming here year after year after year and it gets worse and worse. >> supervisor yee: there are additional things that need to be studded. there was a vibration study analysis. these people changed their foundation several times. i'm an architect by training and i understand this. 82 word ward was not going to be excavated when it was a basement but now there's no choice but to go right up to it. the vibration report said it would be .24 out of allowed .25 and they're chipping out old foundation and we're not there yet. >> supervisor yee: thank you, very much. this public is item 25 and has been held and it's now filed. we will now reconvene as the board of supervisors,

colleagues, we now have items 26, 27 and 28 before us. supervisors ronen, final remarks. >> thank you, president yee. first of all, i have to say that i'm always sorry to see when a project in my district comes before the board. my office did meet with both the developer and the appellant separately before they stalled several months ago. i was hopeful that we could bring the parties back together to reach a compromised agreement as we've been able to do in the past with a number of other projects including most recently, on another mid scale apartment building on cesar chavez. if i believed there was a possibility of doing that again, i would continue this and bring the parties together again.

unfortunately, i think we've reached an impasse where the discussions will no longer be fruitful. before i go into anymore further details of this appeal, i just have to say that i was -- there was an october 1st letter from david blackwell of alan matkins that i received that i just have to publicly say was way out of line. i'm not always 100% in agreement with united states of mission just like i'm not always 100% in agreement with project sponsors. i cannot tell you how grateful i am for the dedication and support for united to save the mission. our mission no eviction. specifically of la reece a, pedro and kelly hill who volunteer hours and hours of their time to protect the working class neighborhood that they call home.

and when mr. blackwell compared these hard-working activists to criminals, i think that was nasty and it was offensive and it wasn't only offense offensim but to me. to all of us struggling to take the seriousness of these conversations to heart and to make thoughtful decisions around land use and housing in our city. that is not how we do development in san francisco and i expect never to see this again come up in a sponsors' rebuttal. it offended me and i want to thank everything you do for this neighborhood. you are tireless. we love and appreciate you for that. having said that, and put that to the side for a minute, i also

want to thank, i want to comment on whether or not this would be my dream development for this par self land in the mission, absolutely not. we all know that what the city needs, but particularly what the mission needs, isn't more luxury housing, it's affordable housing. it's affordable homes for the thousands of people that have been displaced, for the teachers and working class communities that are getting pushed further and further out of our city. thanks to this community fighting so hard, we currently have four cranes up in the mission building 100% affordable housing projects, housing that we truly need as a city and as a neighborhood and we have 300 more in the pipelines and these are nine-storey building that's same community embraces and welcomes to the community. i also get very incensed when i

hear them call mission activists nimbys, all they want is more housing but housing for the working class communities that are being pushed out of the neighborhood. so i just have to say that. unfortunately, this isn't that project that we want to see in our neighborhood. not only does it not meet the current 25% affordable requirements, it was grant grandfathered into a earlier requirement. unfortunately, the density, bonus law, statehousing accountability law and even now more strict laws that supervisor wiener and others are pushing in sack ra men csacramento are takl our local power to actually talk about the impact that these

projects have on displacement in our community. and ceqa is the tool that is left which is really not very powerful. it doesn't allow for the room, especially as being interpreted under current case law for us to analyze and plan for the human impacts these developments have on the neighborhood. and i hate while this project is 19% affordable on site from the base project, that these state density laws allow the developer to fee out on the additional heighten density so if you look at the total project over all, it's only 13% that's going to be below market rate units on site. they will be eight homes that working class families will have in the mission but that percentage is way too low.

and it's frustrating to me. i wish i had more power to do something about it. i have read all the documents and racked my brain and pushed the planning department to think through, is there anyway under ceqa where there's not sufficient analysis that we have to go back and review more and i just don't see it with the geo tech nal report that i have analyzed over and over, i just don't see where there is room to push on that and as we've zendaya this board several times has said that under these laws that don't protect our communities, this community plan infection, what environmental factors would make this plan

out-of-date and so perhaps we have to consider going back and looking at the underlying plan because there are no environmental factors that will make this exemption stale. so, today i'm going to make a motion, i know i'm going to days point several members of the community that i admire deeply. it's not easy for me but i am going to move to adopt item 26 and table item 27 and 28. >> supervisor yee: so there's a motion that's been made. is there a second. >> a second by supervisor fewer.

and can we take this same house same call. >> clerk: roll call mr. president. >> supervisor yee: roll call, please. >> clerk: it is the same house. i didn't see supervisor safai so you can do same house same call. >> clerk: can we take this same house same call. >> supervisor yee: the motion passes. excuse me. we need to continue the meeting, please.

>> let's move on. so, i think we are, i believe public comment. >> supervisor yee: we are on roll call. >> clerk: supervisor. [roll call] >> supervisor yee: colleagues, i know i've been talking about this particular issue for a while now. and i'm going to talk some more about it. the office of emerging technology. disruptive technologies and trends are changing the way we work, communicate and live.

we are in another industrial revolution, one where the speed scope and pervasiveness of technologies advances are unprecedented. the industrial revolution of the past came with many benefits including increased job opportunities and production levels. inspire innovation, allow foray sis able and faster communication and reduce the experience of borders. however, before regulations there were unintended consequences that have profound negative impact of our public including labor practices with the use of child labor, unsafe and dangerous working conditions, unregulated house of minimum play and the list goes on. this is because the pace and impact 6 neck logical change

increasing while the speed of government is considering and adopting regulatory legislation has not kept pace. this is about what is going on in san francisco. and today, the unintended negative consequences must stop. early in 2018 when i tried to ban the delivery robots, i was seen annan anti tech or solving for something that wasn't a problem. a few weeks later when scooters were dumped on our sidewalks everyone understood. the city and our residents demanded action in order to control what was taking place on our streets. monthly, we read about private data being hacked and millions of people's identity being identified. it's workforce as employees in order to be fairly compensated and in hong kong, we're seeing

we are seeing technology and in china technological-based social credit systems are rolled out that could reward people and punish people according to their stores. to address this by being reactive and legislating other technology or devices already launched is not good governance. we need to be as innovative in our policies as emerging tech and it's in adopting and launching products. today san francisco is the first in the world as far as i know that will establish an office of emerging technology. the o.e.t. as i call it will allow the city and the public to effectively evaluate any

emerging technology benefits and impacts before they operate on our public infrastructure. i support innovation and technology. our residents are not guinea pigs and are public infrastructures is not a free for all on regular unregulated space. san francisco becomes emerging technologies but as the city we must ensure that technologies provide a net common good measure in identifiable ways and that they are safe and appropriate. many emerging technologies impact the public in disruptive ways. they utilize a public infrastructure or the right away of our airspace or our data. to their basically benefit the profits. i want to be clear that the objective is not to stymie or

control those technologies but to balance the public service of innovation with the public good and safety. this is why i am proud that we had a robust, thorough and collaborative process through my emerging technology workgroup and we're over 200 people and organizations participated including small startups, well established tech firms, advocates, labor, merchants and neighbor associations, multiple departments and academics. the recommendations from the report are what informed the legislation for the office of emerging technology. so the office of emerging technologies is unchartered territory but we now have a holistic regulatory framework and i am confident in the process that has brought us

here. as a reminder of the most examples of emerging technologies today, are mobility focus but the office of e.t. will be inclusive with the technologies beyond mobility to anywhere there's a nexus between technology and public infrastructure. whether this is the hover boards or publicly facing data collection bio metrics and the public right away anywhere that will be potentially and impact to other critical resources, for the first time they will have a clear and streamline process for approval and the office of emerging technologies will number one, act as a front door for emerging technologies

companies to a central point of contact for companies. a streamline process by facilitating approvals by all departments impacted by the emersion technology that is regulated. and in office of e.t. with safely test and evaluate new technologies and clear evaluation criteria and we'll improve communication between among emerging tech companies, san francisco residents local businesses. the office of et will support responsive policy development in areas such as equity, accessibility, privacy and data ethics. and office of emerging technology will process smart forecasting through expert collaboration zoos that our city can bs so that our citycan be p.

the office of e.t. addresses both unmet needs protecting the public and supporting emerging tech. we thank tekin owe rate isors e are happy to emergency merging technology for public interest. this is why our city policies need to be on the forefront just as san francisco is the center for tech and innovation. i want to thank supervisor fewer for co-sponsoring and thank city administrator naomi kelly and her team including mattias jamie and bill barnes, debra lusky from the public works and kate tourin who helped us formulate the legislation hearing.

a special thanks to chris tom as well as many of our other city attorneys who work on this legislation. i also wanted to thank all other city departments who helped inform the recommendations of the office of emerging technology. so, i want to extend my gratitude to the tech sector, businesses labor and academics who participated in the workgroup. and last but not least, i would really want to thank my staff. erika mayborn who ree really wod on this legislation and she did it without ever looking back and saying why did i get myself into this and i'm really glad she took this on because i would have lost my patients about a year ago. so, that is what i'll be

introducing. and hopefully you will be supporting that. also, colleagues, i would like to close today's meeting in honor and in loving memory of robdale pelasios. rafael was also known as super jeff and a force of nature as the lead instructor of city bill academy. he lived and breathed his work. even in his final days, he spoke with the director joshua arsay about plans for when he left his post, he cared so deeply about his apprentice and the mission of the city build. rafael fought and battled cancer until his final days. even in sickness, he never complained. he was positive and inspirational to everyone around him. last week his family organized a

touching memorial to allow his friends, band mates and city build members to celebrate his life. they are compiling a book of memories to honor his spirit. he is survived by his loving wife, jackie and his children. colleagues, i ask for this memoriam to be on behalf of the san francisco board of supervisors as rafael was the heart of city bill academy. which is incredible in providing the opportunities and workforce development. we want to share our deepest condolences to his loved ones, his friends and entire city build family. his memory and regularly lives on through his students, past and present. as city bill academy, the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president, supervisor brown. >> colleagues, as many of you

new, governor kne gov will sign. rent app and eviction legislation puts in place some of the strongest renter protections in the nation. while many san francisco owe tenants are protected by our rent control ordinance, those living in buildings constructed between 1979 and 2004 do not benefit from those same protections. including potential outrageous and predatory rent increases and unjust evictions. with ab-1482 becoming the law of the land today, i'm looking forward how to implement it in san francisco. i am interested in seeing to what degree the rent board can help and implementing this new law and i am working with the city attorney and rent board on legislation to implement 1482 in san francisco. and i look forward to working with my colleagues and that effort. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor brown. supervisor fewer. >> thank you, madam clerk.

today i am introducing legislation to ensure that the francis scott key teacher educator housing project will qualify for the full streamlining benefits of prop e if and when it's approved by the voters. this legislation will amend the unit mix for educator housing projects by removing the three bedroom requirements and requiring that half of the unit in an educator housing projects are two bedrooms or larger by making this tweak, we can shave more than a year off the approval of timeline for francis scott key by eliminating the need for rezoning. in the future, i will be introducing legislation to create a baseline high increase for 100% affordable housing projects and educator housing projects. this high increase is not needed by the affordable housing projects in the pipeline and it's not time sensitive. i will be asking the board to consider this change at a later date after environmental review is completed. i want to thank my co sponsors,