. >> clerk: and sfgovtv is on here, so why don't we push "live," christine? okay. we are now -- somebody needs to

turnoff their microphone. in fact, i'll ask all to turnoff their microphones. okay. we're getting feedback from someone playing back the sfgov delayed broadcast. josey, if you can move your cursor to take away the floating menu bar. okay. welcome to the meeting of the planning commission on february 16, 2020. i will remind the public that on february 26, the mayor declared a state of emergency.

as we a and then, she declared that we may hold meetings remotely. some tips to keep in mind. we are learning that there are problems with the at&t bridge conference line. it is extremely finicky and has a limited capacity, so as a result, we're asking members of the public calling in through the 800 public line is to call in once essentially. call in and follow the hearing. every time someone calls in, hangs up, and calls back counts against the city.

in the event that our at&t bridge fails, we may be forced to recess and call back in. however, this should not take too long, about five minutes at the moment, okay? so just, again, i do apologize in advance for the clumsy nature of this remote hearing, but this being the third time my staff at least is working through the hearing process, i'm beginning to feel much more comfortable. commissioners, at this time, i'd like to take roll. [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you, commissioners. i will remind not just the commissioners but staff and anyone on the team's live event, if you're not speaking, mute your camera. this will allow a much more efficient meeting to be run, and our producer to see all the cameras necessary. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance,

items 1 through 6. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: further, commissioners, under your discretionary review, item 16 for case 2017-015019 drp, discretionary review, is

proposed for continuance to may 21, 2020, and item 17 a and b for case 20717009796 drp is requested for continuance, and both of those come from the supervisorial offices. i have no other requests for continuances. members of the public, please, if you wish to speak on these matters of continuance, and only on the subject of the continuance itself, now would be the opportunity to do so by dialing 888-273-3658, and enter

access code 3104572. so chan, if we can go to the queue to allow people the opportunity to speak. is anyone on the line to speak to a continuance? >> caller: yes. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> yes, i'm speaking on item

16. the continuance is to be for 60 days, not 30 days because the item had to be renoticed. i discussed this with david winslow. i'm representing some of the neighbors at 350-352 san jose avenue, so we request that you move it to june 18 or 25. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. [inaudible] >> -- on behalf of the resident of 1088 howard. we are happy to agree to a short continuance to

accommodate the d.r. requester, but we ask that it be as short as possible. all of us are adjusting to the new reality of video conference hearings, and it's unclear if it'll be in different in a month, so we have to have a hearing other than that. the project has been proposed since 2017, and we need an opportunity to present before the commission. thank you for your time. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. audie raun. i am here to ask you to postpone the project for 350 san jose off. the public deserves to have their 311 notification.

i don't know if there's enough time to discuss individual errors and omissions that the planning should have caught, but basically, we need more than 30 days, and the project needs to be renotified. so i'm asking the commission to do the right thing. renotify the project with the correct drawings, and 30 days is not going to make that happen. also, we believe that the lockdown is not going to be on indefinitely. at some point, we are going to have to come out, and hopefully, we will be facing you in person to present to you the exhibits and documentations of why we think this is not a just project. thank you very much. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining.

[inaudible] >> clerk: okay. whoever has their mic on and is watching the sfgovtv broadcast, please mute your microphone immediately. >> jonas, i have additional questions. >> clerk: okay. why don't we push them through? >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> hello. my name is kathy lipscomb, and i am a neighbor of this project -- a noe valley neighbor. i think it should be delayed

very long. i am furious that apparently tenants were evicted, and they were -- there's no record of any buyout process, and i don't know why a project like this has any legitimacy. the owners -- the present owners are the ones who evicted tenants, and now they want to make luxury structures a -- linked to this building, and they also want to have luxury condos in the present four-unit building. outrages. it should be delayed, yes, most definitely. thank you for listening. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hello, planning commissioners. this is anastasia yovanapolous, also from noe valley. i'm urging the commission to consider a continuance of 60

days at 350-352 san jose avenue. the notice to the neighbors must be renoticed. we'll have more to say as noe valley tenants about who got evicted and what happened at this project. thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> oh, i'm sorry. this is georgia, but i agree with everything i heard. i thought i was on b, but i agree with everything i heard. i'll wait till later. thank you. bye. >> you ha>> operator: you have questions remaining. >> clerk: okay.

commissioners, i believe you can begin your deliberations now. >> president koppel: so before i start calling on commissioners, i did receive the request for the 30-day continuance, and so that was as far as i knew things are going. if the other commissioners or staff want to chime in, that's fine, but let me start off with commissioner moore. >> clerk: commissioner moore, is your microphone on? >> commissioner moore: sorry, my microphone was not on. on today's agenda, it was $750,000 for improvement of dewey park to be undertaken

this summer. this was on the part of community activism to improving the park, and i would like to get some clarity on how the park would be affected by this potential -- this building being rather large and intruding into what was originally the rear yard of the building. i'm not taking any position, but i believe i would like to get more information on the park improvements and what they entail in that area, and that would make me gravitate to a longer extension than the 30-days proposed for 350-352 san jose avenue. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. since there are -- i'm -- you know, i'm cautious when there are history of evictions when it comes to proposed

developments, so i would support the community request to extend it to 60 days? i think there needs to be more scrutiny about this building, the 350 san jose avenue? and the community deserves to be renotified. and in these times, everyone is in emergency mode, and to think about planning is something that is, like, on top of it, too. so i would support a motion to move it to june 25. >> clerk: did staff person may want to chime in? >> yes, good afternoon. commissioners. chris may of planning department staff. i am speaking on item five, the proposed continuance of 2417

green street. that was heard by the commission on january 9, 2020, and it was continued to mediate between the d.r. requesters and the project sponsors to hopefully come up with a compromise. that meeting was scheduled for march 17 at city hall, which had to be cancelled because of the shelter in place. we also wanted to seek the

commission's direction on the mediation of that meeting, and whether that would board the commission's direction on january 9. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i have two questions for staff on the requested continuance on the san jose matter. first, when did the supervisor request continuance? i understand the continuance came from the supervisorial office, and second, if it's staff view that renotification is required. >> david winslow regarding 350 san jose. the supervisor's office requested a 60-day continuance to reengage with neighbors on the issues before them. coincidentally, yesterday, we also reviewed the project with

respect to some of the -- contesting the 311 notification accuracy with the sponsor, and we determined it was inadequate, and therefore needed to be renotified. so that's another 30-daytime frame, and i think 60 days is probably a reasonable time for this to be continued out just because there's a process that will require the supervisor convening meetings with neighbors as well as project sponsors to hash out issues with the sponsor as well as adequate notification. >> clerk: commissioners, i'm

notified that there is one other public commenter that would like to submit their testimony, and we're just waiting for them to call into the bridge. >> operator: your summit is now in conference mode. you have one question remaining. >> clerk: okay. go ahead, speaker. okay. somebody needs to mute their microphone, please.

caller, are you on the phone? >> clerk: mr. kaplan, are you ready to speak? >> hi. i'm sorry. this is georgia, but when i'm listening, there is nothing on the phone, and i have no clue as to where you are in the agenda. so i don't know what's going on, i'm sorry. i'm very confused today. is this like last week? i'm not getting anything on my phone. i don't know if you can hear me. i don't know. i'm sorry. i don't know what to say. i don't know if anyone's hearing me now.

thank you. >> i can hear you. >> clerk: yeah, but apparently, she cannot hear us. >> caller: really consult. >> commissioner moore: i could hear mr. kaplan in the background, but too faint to discern every word. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, everybody. i don't believe that i'm able to hear any audio -- any of the audio commentary in discourse that is occurring in this meeting at this time. if you could please check the signal or the way that the communication is coming through the phone. the phone is not -- i cannot hear what you are discussing. i would like to give public comment, as i'm sure many san

franciscans would like to do. however, we don't even know what's on the agenda, and i don't even know what project is being discussed right now that i was allowed to give public comment for, although i do have some projects that i'm highly interested in. and again, san franciscans would like to be hearing this via phone, not necessarily via video. so if you could please help, once again, this is sarah with yimby action, and we advocate for housing in all areas. >> clerk: commissioners, we're going to have to take a five-minute recess and rebridge the at&t conference line. as you can see, we're already experiencing technical issues with it. so i would

>> okay. we've remerged. >> clerk: thank you, chan. okay. so commission president koppel, if you could close public comment for the matters proposed for continuance? >> president koppel: okay. seeing no other public comment, public comment is closed. before i call on the other commissioners, here's where i'm at on the san jose project. i do understand supervisor requested 30 days. i do think it is take slightly longer than that but potentially not 60 days, so i'm leaning towards the 30-day continuance with potentially just maybe pushing it back a week or two after then.

commissioner imperial? >> clerk: commissioner imperial, is your mic on? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. sorry. i did not -- so i have a question on staff regarding another development that is 1088 howard. did the supervisor -- you know, did the supervisor also request a 30-day or is there a timeline that the supervisor recommended? >> clerk: both requests were for 30 days, commissioner. >> commissioner imperial: okay. for -- regarding the 350 and -- san jose avenue, i would still push for the 60 days just because -- again, because of the renotification, and it looks like there are people,

various of the communities that would like to speak more about this development, and it would be a good -- and also the staff mentioned, as well, that, you know, usually it would be also a good time for you, supervisor, and the community to discuss --

[please stand by]. >> hi. david winslow, staff architect. there were some minor modifications that needed to be corrected in the drawings, and that was what led to the need to -- [inaudible] >> those can be corrected pretty quickly, i believe, by the architect. just a matter of staff time in order to notice. but, however, i believe that there will be other outcomes as a result of the involvement through the supervisor that might also want to be incorporated in that -- that noticing. i think it's realistic to be, you know, 45 days -- something necessarily -- it doesn't necessarily need to be 60. >> clerk: commissioners, if i may, if we continue it 30 days, and we determine that it needs to be continued further, that is easily accomplished.

>> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i, too, would like to hear from the parties, so i make a motion to continue items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to the date specified. continue item 16 by 60 days, and items 17-a and b by 30

days. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: second. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: somehow there was a delay, but i seconded that motion, too. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. if there's nothing further, i have a motion that has been seconded to continue items 1 through 6 as proposed, item 16 to june 18, and item 17 to may 21. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved,

commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. if the acting zoning administrator could act on item 17-b, the variance, for 1088 howard street. >> director hillis: okay, jonas, we'll continue that to the same day. >> clerk: thank you, mr. acting zoning administrator. commissioners, next is your consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission, there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a

future hearing. item 7, 2018-011717 cua, 1369 sanchez street, and item 8, 2020-002054 pca, reauthorization and extension of fee waiver, legalization of unauthorized dwelling units. and i did get a motion from georgia sciutish to remove item 8 from the consent calendar. >> president koppel: okay. would anyone else like to pull an item off the consent

calendar? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i would like to remove this item from the consent calendar because it was on the open calendar last week, and i believe it should be there. >> clerk: very good. we'll take item 7 off the consent calendar and hear it at the beginning of the regular calendar. chan, is there any public comment? is there anyone in queue, chan? >> caller: no. >> clerk: okay. did you want to ma did you have anything else, commissioner moore?

>> commissioner moore: no, i would like to make a motion to approve item 8 on consent. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: very good. commissioners, on that motion to approve item number 8 on consent -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, and again, for the benefit of the public, item 7 will be taken up at the beginning of the regular calendar, placing us under commission matters, item 9, commissioner comments and questions. seeing none, we can move onto department matters. item 10, director's announcements. >> director hillis: excuse me. good afternoon, commissioners. i just wanted to give you a

quick budget update for the department. we are due to submit our nine-month report to the controller's office tomorrow, and we're estimating a $6 million loss in fee revenue or, you know, we're not going to meet budget by $6 million for our own fee revenue. we're also awaiting direction from the mayor's office for general fund impacts. our fee revenue is about $40 million per year, so we believe we're about $6 million under for the year, mostly due to a lack of revenue in income from applications. so we'll come back more and talk to you about that. we believe we can bridge that gap by keeping positions vacant and reducing some of our nonpersonnel expenditures, but i wanted to make you aware of that as we send our estimates

to the controller's office. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> director hillis: commissioner moore, are you on mute? >> commissioner moore: i'm sorry, director hillis. i was asking as to whether or not the additional cost for conducting these televised meetings will continue in the form that they do contribute extra costs, and do they have to be borne out of the budget? >> director hillis: jonas, i don't know if you can provide any information on that. if they are, they're not significant. definitely, the fee revenue is going to be the driving factor in any changes to our budget.

>> clerk: the city already had contracted the m.s. teams application, and we had existing contracts with the at&t bridge conference line, and so there are some nominal fees associated with it. i believe less than $100 associated with going to the live event broadcast, but other than that, these remote hearings are not incurring additional significant costs. >> commissioner moore: thank you for clarifying that. >> clerk: okay. if there's nothing further, we can move onto item 11, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs.

the first item was supervisor stefani's -- [inaudible] >> -- and three reduce the ground floor ceiling height prosecut from 14 feet to 12 feet. the planning commission heard this item on january 28 of this year. while this recommendation was not included in the ordinance, supervisor stefani indicated during the meeting that she was amenable to the change and was discussing the option with the city attorney's office. there was no public comment during the hearing, however, supervisor preston expressed concern that the option for inclusionary or housing fee goes against the original intent of the f.u.d. supervisor preston questioned what made this bad precedent.

both supervisor safai and peskin agreed with supervisor preston. supervisor stefani also indicated she had initial concerns, but after sitting down with the city attorney and going over the numbers, she came to the conclusion that this was the only way to get housing on the site. in the end, the committee moved the item forward without recommendation in order to give him an opportunity to discuss this further with supervisor stefani and the developer. next was the development agreement for the potrero hill power plan. the committee heard this on january 20 including modifications, including adding a 20% -- [inaudible] >> -- requirement and other changes. at the hearing, staff from oewd

and staff also presented. chair peskin made the motion to amend the ordinance to include the commission's proposed modifications, which then passed. the chair then recommended this ordinance be moved to the full board as a committee report, and this motion also passed. last on the land use agenda was the proposed zoning map and planning code amendments for the buy view industrial triangle. one of the proposed ordinances would update the zoning within the bayview industrial triangle, and the other would prohibit cannabis retail within the bayview triangle area. both items were heard at the planning commission on february 20 of this year. at that hearing, the planning commission recommended both of the additional considerations on how -- they recommended both items with an additional

consideration of how to accommodate the nearby school's request for expansion space. planning department staff has since been in contact with the school's administrators for other routes to achieving this desired expansion aside from school changes. there's no public comment on either item, and the committee posed no significant questions or recommendations. committee then forwarded the item to the full report board. the ocean avenue ordinance that would amend control regarding lot usage and orders permitted were passed. and the potrero power plant and bayview industrial triangle ordinances all passed their

first reading with one note, that supervisor mandelman voted no on restricting cannabis sales in the bayview industrial triangle. that's my report, and i'm open for questions. >> clerk: okay. seeing no questions from commissioners regarding the meeting of the board of supervisors, the board of appeals attempted to meet last night for the first time. unfortunately, due to some technical issues, they had to adjourn the meeting. the historical preservation commission did meet yesterday via teams and the conference bridge. they were able to act on several items under consent, approving some certificates of

appropriateness. they also heard the standard environmental requirements, code amendments regarding ceqa determination measures, and there was consensus that the commissioners were supportive of the proposed code amendments. there was significant community opposition to having the matter considered during this emergency and in a remote hearing, and for that reason, the commission chose to continue that matter to their next hearing of may 6. they then heard and adopted recommendations for and approval for three small businesses. city nights, korean martial

arts, and the new everyboconsey theater. at the adjournment of the regular meeting, the art commission of the historic preservation commission convened and considered the project at 300 bartlett street, and the architecture review committee provided significant review and recommendations. that's all i have, unless there are questions from commissioners? seeing none, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda

items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment will be moved to the end of the agenda. there will be a hard stop today at 15 minutes before the general public comment will be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this would be your time to call 888-273-3658. again, the access code is 3170452. press pound, and pound again, and then enter one and zero to enter the queue. chan, if we could go to the question-and-answer mode for the at&t conference bridge. >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to ask your question, press one

and zero mode. >> clerk: so to members of the public, now is the time to press one and zero to submit your testimony under general public comment. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> oh, hi. thanks for fixing the audio. this is georgia sciutish. good afternoon, commissioners. hope everyone is doing okay or as good as possible. i want to read the findings that show the very first thing in section 317, and here's what they say. san francisco faces a continuing shortage of affordable housing. there is a high ratio of rental to ownership among the city's residents. a general plan recognizes that affordable housing is the greatest stock of financially accessible residential units and is a resource in need of

protection. therefore, a hearing will be required before any permit that would remove any housing except as described below. the planning commission shall develop a code implementation document setting forth procedures and regulations for the implementation of this section 317 as provided further below. the zoning administrator shall modify economic criteria related to property values and construction costs in the implementation document as warranted by changing economic conditions to meet the intent of this section. and right below that is definiti definitions and below that is tantamount to demolition. but before the tantamount to demolition, it says, the commission may reduce the

mechanical elements of this criteria in b2b and b2c by up to 20% of their values should it deem necessary to implement the intent of this section 317 to conserve existing sound housing and preserve affordable housing. so that's the adjustment, but it's never been done. and i guess my question is, if the drafters and approvers of this code section thought it necessary, why did they put it in there or did they think it would be abused? i hear the cow bell, so i'm done. thank you. >> clerk: georgia, you have 30 seconds. >> operator: you have five questions remaining.

>> good afternoon. i am kay klum. my proper my -- after the current owners purchased the two unit affordable rental building in 2018 adjacent to mine, they told the tenants they would be doing a little renovations. day by day, more of the building was demolished. neighbors were alarmed, and eventually, it was deemed an illegal demolition. the tantamount demolition was last authorized for conditional authorization on sept 18, 2019 when it was disapproved.

we have submitted documentation of the two units by e-mail, which you should have now. please remove 2118 21 street from the april 21 calendar, and do not reschedule it until after sept 19, 2020. thank you very much. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> clerk: speaker, if you're ready to go, you have the phone. caller? caller? this is your opportunity to submit your testimony. >> caller: yes. this is audie rem with noe

valley. i'm here to echo the same statements that the previous caller had, but more than that, i would like to point out to you that the case that was continued today, 350 and 352 san jose avenue, along with a case that will be coming to you next week, which is 4118 21 street, as well as yet another case at 4211 26 street that will be coming to you the following week, they all involve tenants that were evicted or displaced. some of these cases involve demolitions. some are being heard by you as a postmortem approval for these demolitions. i guess the question to you is, do these tenants' lives matter? we have so many evictions ademd

evictions that preceded these demolitions and massive remodels. i do understand that there's nothing in the planning code that precludes a developer or a speculator from removing tenants, remodelling, and then re-gussying it up to rent to another person. neither do we have protections for these unjustly acts, but it is within your discretion. commissioners, you can make the decision of either approving these projects, which is a way of rewarding these bad actors, or you can stop that. it is within the discretion of this commission to actually tell the speculators that this is not right. you cannot buy these places, particularly because tenant occupied homes in this town are

far, far cheaper than the ones that are not occupied. the case before you next week is an egregious case. a 59.5-year-old woman was displaced after 20 or 30 years, and she had to leave the state. so it's not just an affordablity crisis, it's actually the bad actors that are pushing our tenants out of the city. thank you very much, and please use your discretion against these bad actors. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: hello. i'm speaking about 2020-000215,

4118 21 street, also asking it be removed from the agenda under planning code section 303. this was rejected in august last year by the planning commission. it was two units being replaced by two units, and it's the same applicant, being replaced by the same applicant. i'm one of the 16 neighbors objecting to it being heard prior to september 19, 2020. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hi. my name is ben. this is essentially my first time giving public comment, so i'm really happy this is happening virtually. you know, a lot of people can't takeoff half a day to show up in person, so i appreciate that this is an option? so i just want to say, in general, you know, there's been

a lot of talk about moving construction activities and other things and stuff later, and i think it's important to do what we can now because this whole crisis has made it ever more clear that housing is a huge issue in the city, and to delay much needed housing, we should avoid that at all costs. yeah, and we need to keep the pipeline moving and more projects going so that we can actually get more people in housing, and i think there's a way to do that without, you know, sacrificing these tenants, not just for existing residents but for the people who would live in these new projects. their voices are not going to be on this line.

>> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> good afternoon, director hillis and commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. we realize there is an ongoing conversation continuing construction during the covid-19 crisis, and we wanted to make sure that you all are aware that we are having an event about safety on the construction job site tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. this event is open to the public. anybody can get the information at sfhac.org/events and sign up. we will have residents from the san francisco building trade and others, including the san francisco employer association. i will follow up with an e-mail

to you all, and i look forward to seeing you tomorrow. thank you very much. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sarah, and i'm a member of yimby action. i just wanted to say, a new study was published by the national association of home builders, indicating that 1,000 average rental apartments being built generates 1,250 jobs and $55.91 million in taxes and in revenue for local, state, and federal government? moreover, $10 million in remodelling expenditures creates 75 jobs and $3 million in revenue. so my comments are that any projects that are going to immediately be on the agenda

that do not cause displacement or harm to tenants, including the soma parking lot project, i would ask you to consider expediting that project moving forward to save the economy and to give thousands of families the opportunity to save the economy here in san francisco. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: okay. excellent. all within the 15-minute time limit, as well. commissioners, seeing that there are no additional public comments, we can move onto your regular calendar. item 7 was pulled off of your consent calendar, 2018-011717

cua at 1349 sanchez street. keep in mind that this is the second hearing. aoctober 24, 2019, after hearing and closing public comment, commen comment. presentations will be limited to three minutes, and public comment will be limited to one minute. >> good afternoon, commissioners. stephan stephanie cisneros, department staff. just to provide a little bit of history on the project, it received initial approval through the existing building

in 2017 with conditions implemented by the discussion as part of a discretionary review hearing. this application is intended to address additional demolition that took place during construction that caused the project to exceed the demolition threshold outlined in planning code section 317. the item was first heard by this commission on october 24, 2019, and was continued to december 19, at which time, the commission continued the item again to request that the project be revised to include an accessory dwelling unit. a link to the original october 24 published packet has been provided in your current packet. this new current packet does contain background information related to the october 24 discretionary review hearing. since then, it has been modified to include a

one-bedroom a.d.u. on the location of the project. this concludes my brief presentation. i'm available for questions, and we do have the project sponsor on the phone with us today to provide a brief update and to answer any questions that you may have. >> clerk: before we get to the project sponsor's presentation, i wanted to remind members of the public that this is your time to call in to the 800 number. 888-273-3658. end the access code, and press one-zero to be entered into the queue to speak on this matter. project sponsor, if you're ready, go ahead and speak. you have three minutes. project sponsor? you may need to unmute your phone by pressing star-six.

>> caller: yeah, hello? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: yeah, this is the project sponsor for sanchez. >> clerk: you're on. >> caller: okay. i just wanted to let you know that i'm the architect. this is the first time that i've done this. i'm sorry. it's really confusing. i just wanted to let you know that i am here to answer questions. we have responded to the last hearing, and we have added the a.d.u. as requested to the project. it's now two units and an a.d.u. at the ground level. it would provide three units, including one badly needed for housing at this point. that's all i have to say.

>> clerk: okay. chan, why don't we go to the q&a? >> caller: okay. >> operator: your call is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon, press one and then zero. >> clerk: do we have anyone in the queue? >> caller: yes. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> oh, hi. it's georgia sciutish again. hello, commissioners. i've got three points to make. i think since the project sponsor's units are all going to be rental units, you need to have a report back within six months of the c.f.c. that they are rental units pursuant to

the t.i.u. and nothing has been ellised. you extend the spiral staircase up just like the existing back stairs or what were the existing back stairs that served both flats before they were illegally demolished. and then, the three criteria, b, i, and l and section 317 need proper authority to authorize this demo. b just shows that there were maintenance issues. i think that they were decent enough. if you look at the redfin 2015 link that i sent, you can discern that. you can compare rental rates in 2015 to 2020 to get a sense of the relative affordable.

certainly, if they'd been fixed up in 2015, not attempted to be made into a monster home with a sham unit, as former commissioner richards would call it, you can see what the relative affordable would be. and finally, criterian l show that they were family units, not single units. i think it's important since this was an illegal demolition to get the draft motion right, the findings right, when you're reapproving this illegal demolition. that's it again. so if anyone has any questions -- i want to thank miss cisneros for her help, and i'll stay on the listen to

listen in. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. i believe the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to ask the architect a few questions. can you hear me? >> caller: yes, i can. >> commissioner moore: okay. i am looking at your drawing as it lands on the lower floor across from the a.d.u. my question is, shouldn't that spiral staircase exit away from the building face in order not to interfere with that lower living unit as depicted on drawing az02? >> i think it's a good suggestion. right now, the spirals have limitations in terms of where you start and where you end up. if we can get it further off

the architectural development, it's a good suggestion, and certainly, if we can keep the spiral stair going in front of somebody's private window, that would be -- yeah, that -- that would be a good idea. again, spirals just have a certain math to them, and they tend to start and end at the same place, but that's something i can look at. we were trying to minimize the impact of the spiral staircase on the rear yard. i was trying to hug it as tight as i can to the building and minimize decks and other things to keep it minimal. it is already a variance, and the intent is, you know, to minimize the impact. >> commissioner moore: what is important for the commission to have an a.d.u., which we appreciate being introduced, but it has to basically guarantee privacy, and since

the spiral is a right-turning spiral, you may want to look at that, as well. i have another question on behalf of my fellow commissioners. regarding the roof deck, i could support a roof deck, but i would ask that we reduce the roof deck to 462 square feet to what is an appropriate open space for a unit in rh-2, and that would be approximately 125 square feet so the deck goes to approximately the dimension of 11.3 by 11.3 to keep an appropriate sizing to the rest of the building. i do not want to add an extra square footage as a reward. this project has had challenges with the commission. i am supportive of a deck if it has to be on the roof, however, it would have to be reduced to less than half of its current

size. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i'm prepared to accept the revised design with the a.d.u., and i would move to grant the conditional use and approve the project with commissioner moore's modification of the roof deck. >> president koppel: second. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i was going to second. >> president koppel: commissioner moore, go ahead? >> commissioner moore: could i ask commissioner fung, you would agree with turning the spiral or make an attempt to turn the spiral away -- from into the building to away from the building? >> commissioner fung: yes. >> commissioner moore: thank you.

>> clerk: okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to reduce this project as amended, reducing the roof deck 50% and modifying the spiral stair as noted by commissioner moore. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 12 for case number 2015-004827 env for the alameda creek recapture project. this is the certification of the final environmental impact

report. please note that certain portions of the e.i.r. is closed. the public comment of the draft ended on -- on the draft recirculated portions of the e.i.r. is closed. that ended on january 21, 2020. is staff prepared to make a presentation? staff? >> president koppel: go ahead, mr. kern. >> clerk: you may need to unmute your mic, chris.

chris? chris, your mic is still muted. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yeah, we got you. >> caller: sorry. had to switch technology. this is chris kern, department staff. i'm afraid my computer doesn't have a camera or a microphone, but you should be able to see my photo. this is a presentation of the final e.i.r. of the commission's alameda creek

recapture project. the commission previously certified the final e.i.r. for this project in june 2017, however, in september 2017, the board of supervisors overturned that action in response to an appeal filed by the alameda county water district. in upholding the appeal, the board directed the department to recirculate the report on the project's impact on steel head, and on the other points, the board determined that the data was accurate, and no further appeal was required. th

they -- the revised steel head impact replaced that portion, and is substantially more detailed. it analyzes flow in alameda creek and analyzes surface and groundwater interactions. other impacts examined that could be affected by the revised project operations and the updated technical analysis include special status wildlife species. accumulative impacts that could be impacted by the revised construction schedule include transportation, noise, recreation and hazardous materials. there are no changes to the impacts or significant mitigation measures from the june 2017 e.i.r. the department also submitted the revised groundwater surface water technical analysis to an independent expert for peer

review. it is included as an appendix to the e.i.r. the department published that e.i.r. in december 2019, and the comment period closed on january 21. during the comment period, both the alameda water district and the zone 7 water agencies submitted documentation requesting that the sfpuc hold additional monitoring regarding reporting and effects on groundwater. the sfpuc greed to do the additional reporting and monitoring. i'd like to say that we received one letter from the alameda county water district expressing their agreement for the additional reporting and stating that the district does not oppose certification of the final e.i.r. on april 1, the department

published a supplemental responses to comments document, addressing the comments received on the circulated portion of the e.i.r. the supplemental responses to comments, in combination with the recirculates portions of the e.i.r., the november 2016 draft e.i.r., and the september 2017 responses to comments together constitutes the final e.i.r. we believe the e.i.r. is adequate and provides decision makers and the public with the information to understand the financial impacts on the environment. on this basis, staff asks that you approve the final document and find that the final document as prepared conforms with ceqa, the ceqa siguidelin, and chapter 31 of this code. that concludes my presentation.

thank you. >> clerk: chan, do we have anyone in the question-and-answer mode? >> caller: we'll activate. >> clerk: so again, members of the public, if you wish to speak to this matter, this would be your opportunity to press one and zero to get into the queue and submit your public testimony. chan, why don't we leave the public comment free and open and if anybody enters the queue, would you be so kind to notify us. >> caller: will do. >> clerk: commissioners, i believe the matter is now before you.

>> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: staff has made a comprehensive answer to the questions that we heard, and i'm prepared to move to certify the final e.i.r. >> president koppel: i'll second that and call on commissioner moore. commissioner moore, is your mic on? >> commissioner moore: i'm sorry. i have a problem with that. i think that the document

submitted for alameda is complete and accurate. >> clerk: okay. and chan, just to be certain, no one has entered the queue? >> caller: no one. >> clerk: then there is a motion before you to certify the final e.i.r. document. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that item passes, 6-0, placing us on item 13, 2017-014833 env, at 469 stevenson street. this is a public hearing on the

draft e.i.r. are you ready? >> yes. i'm going to share my screen. my name is jennie delumo. joining me remotely today is lisa gibson, environmental review officer and jessica range, principal planner, both with the project department. the item before you today is review and comment on the draft environmental impact report or draft e.i.r. prepared for the proposed project. the purpose is today's hearing is to take comments on the accuracy and adequacy of the draft e.i.r. in compliance with the california environmental quality act or ceqa. no approval on this document is requested at this time. the draft e.i.r. for the proposed project was published on march 11, 2020.

the public review period began on march 12, 2020, and will continue until 5:00 p.m. on may 11, 2020. the project site is an approximately 28,790 foot through lot in the soma neighborhood. it is on the block between 5 and 6 streets. the project is currently developed with 166 surface space parking lot. the proposed project would demolish that parking lot and construct an approximately 535,000 square feet, 274-foot tall building. the proposed project would provide approximately 495 dwelling units, 4,000 square of commercial retail use on the ground floor, and 25,000 of

private common open space. it would include a three-level below ground parking garage providing 176 parking spaces, and when installed, 27 class 2 bicycle spaces on adjacent sidewalks. this would provide 19% of the base project's residential units as affordable units on-site. the number of final units will be determined prior to project approval. the draft e.i.r. concluded that shadow casts by the proposed project could adversely and significantly affect the adjoining plaza and impacts to air quality would be significant, and that impacts

on pedestrian levels would be less than significant. as described in the initial study, all other impacts in the proposed study were found to be found less than significant, less than significant with mitigation, or would yield no impact. the draft e.i.r. analyzed three project alternatives, which is required by ceqa. under the reduced density alternative, the project site would be developed with an approximately 160-foot tall building, and 346 dwelling units. 6,357 square feet of retail, 153 parking spaces. this alternative would cast less shadow on the plaza project and would result in insignificant and unavoidable

shadow impact. no residential parking power only alternative would be slightly taller at 484 feet, with 357 dwelling units. this would cl this would construct one basement level for off street freight and service loading, and no parking spaces. [inaudible] >> this alternative would require the same mitigation measures as the proposed project measure to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels. today, the planning department is seeking comments on the adequacy and accuracy the of the information contained in

the draft e.i.r. for members of the public who wish to submit public comment, please state your name and address so that the reporter can transcribe your information. on april 13, 2020, the department received a request to extend the public review period to three weeks after the close of the shelter in place order. in response and to allow for more for interested parties to submit their comments, the environmental review officer is extending the public review period from april 27, 2020, which is a 47-day review, to may 11, 2020, which is a 61-day review. [please stand by]

>> do we have any members of the public in cue for this matter? >> yes. >> why don't we go ahead and take those. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> question: this is david woo and there are many gentrification impact concerns about this project. the er does not impact the rights with delivery services representing safety impacts, as well as increasing the mt, and the city is struggling to control the safety impact of the new modes of transportation. ththis is not understood in the

draft of the eir. they are treated as extensions of the freeways and subject to high amounts of traffic for these same reason. the era of ride-sharing and alleys have been short-cuts in serious traffic and safety impacts. this current project is completely out of scale and not stepped back and interjects park on stevenson which is a busy and narrow pedestrian way. a.alternative b is one way of approaching this site with the building conformed to the height and density requirements. it's misleading making the draft eir deceptive as an informational document.

we asked for the continuance of this hearing and an extension of the common period including, again, if the shelter-in-place is extended due to the coronavirus health crisis and the lack of access to online public hearings. the health crisis has put both community members and community organizations into a tail-spin, struggling to adapt and meet the urgent needs of residents and the workers on the ground that are struggling day-to-day to survive, such greatly limited to engage in the public planning process. as the planning department undertakes a racial social equity plan and framework for planning, this should be applied to the current health crisis having huge impacts on race and socioeconomic status. thank you. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> question: good afternoon. thii am the board president of e

organization specialty created to management plaza for the public benefits. i'm speaking to express the board's strong opposition to the shadow cast by the stephenson project over midplaza. as evidence evidenced in the shw study, the shadow from the project would take away significant sunlight from mid-plaza for several months of the year. as a mid-plac mid-plaza should d and does not reference this in the ordinance. on behalf of friends in the plaza, we urge the planning department to consider the adverse impact the shadow will have on the youth and vibrancy is take steps to reduce the overall height of this proposed power. thank you.

>> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> question: good afternoon, commissioners. the proposed housing project at stevenson street continues to provide an abundance of market rate housing that negatively impacts our community. we have concerns about the proposed project's approach that completely disrespect. (inaudible). >> we have testified so many time before the shadow impacts. some in the tenderloin have accessible working space and they need to be protected. the alternative b shows that if

they were stuck to the 160-foot limit, it would be possible to end up with more new shadows. any new shadow is completely unacceptable. (inaudible) the cumulative effect is that we're destroying the few vacancies we have in the city. there is an environmental impact with gentrification. this will increase once in the area and escalate the underlying zoning. ( inaudible).

it's not provided as an attachment to the bbei. we ask this hearing be continued and the comment period extended. (inaudible). >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> question: i want to join in the question and the person that

spoke in the first place about continuing the hearing and extending the time for public comment. there is an enormous conflict between this project and the surrounding low-income communities and that should be basically accounted for in the project. the other thing that's happened in the past couple of years all of the circulation has been thrown into chaos because this project is going to depend on fifth street and sixth street to get into -- get into our out of the project and those streets go to market street which is close to traffic. the planning department has not had a measurement of what the impacts of the closure of market

street to traffic are and those of us who are familiar with this area know that uber and lyft and other transportation alternative companies disregard the stoppage of traffic and we have no -- because right now traffic is closed for the city and ther --d for the city and have no measurement at all. they should do a basic -- pardon me. they should relock at the traffic and enforcement and the enenforcement is nonexist tent. ent. i support the two-week extension for comments is not enough. equal in this area are

low-income people and a lot of problems because of the closures and that is really important. to the city and the health of the people in the area. thank you. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> question: good afternoon, commissioners. i'm on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition here in support. you know, we obviously understand the environmental imperatives taking the utilized sites and adding lots and lots of housing. we all know that putting housing in close proximity to jobs and public transit is environmentally sound and as we watch the air quality during the covid-19 crisis increase, the air is cleaner, we know it's because people are not driving as much. and so, if we want to continue

the idea that, hey, climate change is real and we know exhaust from cars is one of the key contributors. the best is most effective way today that we can work to mitigate that negative impact is by creating density in our urban corridors, adding a lot to housing in places that are well connected close to the area plan where we just added jobs for employees. is i just want to encourage everybody when thinking about the environmental impacts of this, to look at it from a holistic perspective to understand what great things could come out of building homes on this site on stephenson. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> question: i'm calling in in support of this project.

i think what we're not considering, a lot of the comments i've heard is the people who would live here if the larger proposal would be allow god ahead. we're talking about shadows and transit and classic scale. maybe we need a little more traffic. although many people will not be driving. on the other hand, we had housing for dozens of people, right? so it's important for the people who living there and important for the people who are without housing because people have enough of it in the city. there's a lot that we can't do in terms of planning. but there's a lot we can do that is more easy to do online than for people to take time out of their time, leaving work.

i wouldn't be having this comment if i had to take half a day off work. that's not something a lot of people can say. i like this format. but you need to consider the need of the people who aren't on the line but who we would live here. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> question: good afternoon, president, fellow commissioners. thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. my nami'm a field rep with the carpenter's union here in sanfrancisco. i represent 40,000 carpenters in northern california and 4,000 live here in san francisco. we are in support of this project, a long-time partner of

the carpenter's union is committing to using a general contractor and 27 stories and 927 units. this project will give local carpenters the opportunity to work close to home and give apprentices the opportunity to learn the trade that offers a living wage and benefits including health and retirement. you know, we are in a housing crisis right now and this may not be the answer, but this is part of the solution. the partner's union fully supports this project and ask thasyou approve the project whee time comes. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> question: good afternoon, commissioners and thank you so much for this opportunity to give public comment. i'm sarah ogleby and i'm a member of b & b action is i'm

speaking on my own behalf as a resident of san francisco. i believe in projects that create abundance of housing andn opportunity-rich areas. i completely understand the fear and the concerns of the people who have spoken, who represent a low-income and hard working class people, people who may be displaced. i completely understand what they're saying. i myself have experienced homelessness and it was only through housing, through obtaining housing little by little that i was able to get my family out of a crisis of home lessness and out ohomelessness. the 495 units that would be created here would take

tremendous pressure off of the mission where i live and it would allow people who can afford these homes who are putting pressure on the old housing stock in the mission district and it would get them to an area where transit is plentiful, problems regarding the street and the plaza, they can be resolved. i've been homeless standing in the middle of stephenson plaza and my concern at that point wasn't shadows. it was the fact their was homeless. so i just want toed to speak on behalf of a lot of different people here when i say that adding the housing spot to san francisco helps the carpenter who just spoke create hundreds of jobs and millions in revenue for the city which the city is looking at serious fiscal danger. and we need to think proactively. we need to be forward-thinking.

we need to give everybody an opportunity to boost the economy here and creating abundant housing will give infinite possibility to thousands of people who can't give in san francisco right now. so please, please look at this project with open eyes and as widely, as widely scaled for housing as possible. thank you so much. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: good afternoon. i'm will the san francisco land use coalition and i just couldn't help but jump in after hearing the talks about thousands of people that need housing in this city. and the gentleman from the union that was talking about more jobs

for his fellow colleagues. i am 100% supportive of the union, but i do want to remind you that one of the unions that is hurting right now is the hospitality, the local 2, the people who work in the hotels. we have thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who have lost their jobs because of the crisis, covid-19 crisis that we're facing and we're not out of it yet. we do have people in all sectors that have lost their jobs, including the tech sector. i do want tow brin to bring up t that the yelp, as an outfit, has laid off 1,000 people and furloughed another 1100 people. so isn't it insensitive to talk about more homes, for who? for the people who lost their jobs? is it time to talk about housing crisis where we have economic

crisis? i just want to chime in on that because it is important for you, the commissioners to think in terms of what average person in san francisco is going through and who will be coming to san francisco to reside in these places and units? right now, the mean are living in san francisco were concerned about their rent, their mortgage payment because they do not have the economic security to think from this week to the next. and it is premature to think about or talk about the jobs at 4 him some odd units and the building of 400 odd units will bring to san francisco. ithis is something economists predict to be far wors worse thn

2008. please do not downplay that and do not downplay the pain people are going through, including people in the union, the hotel expect hospitality. we have to be sensitive to everybody. not to mention the tech workers are faced with lay-offs. this is not the time to talkabo. we've lost our jobs. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> commissioners, i believe this would be your opportunity to review and comment. commissioner diamond. >> i have a question for director hill circumstance. is and that is whether or not we can schedule

an opportunity for an informational hearing on this project where we could do a much deeper dive into many of the aspects of the project that aren't necessarily environmental impacts, per say, addressed in the deir and if we could do that significantly of any approval hearings for this project. >> sure. commissioner diamond, through the chair, absolutely. i think we anticipate this project coming back to you for approval late this year, so we can certainly schedule a hearing event to address some of the issues and you may have or others may have. i get this is complicated, especially given the density of the project. >> thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> again, i appreciate one of the public's comment regarding the housing crisis and the economic crisis we're in and i want to inform other

commissioners and the public as to, you know, my other end of the job as who works in a nonprofit for access for affordable housing. we are really seeing people that getting layoffs and they are asking for rental assistance. they don't want to have debt for their rent, but people are worried about the economic impact in their lives. this project, it is big and there's a lot of issues in terms of shadow, the transit mode, also the surrounding area. this area is surrounded by etheros. some may have been used as a tourist attraction.

we know small businesses are impacted during this time. the rent is something that is a big issue. right now people are scrambling to pay for their rent and we're waiting for the money for that rent, as well. in terms of the transportation, in the alleyway, the stevenson street is always used as an alternative to market street, to go to the free highway. i understand that it is complicated and i do support other public comments in continuing and extending the comments until the shelter-in-place is lifted. it's mainly because the people

right now don't have the mental health capacity and the organizations are working on this or the stakeholders don't have the capacity as they are trying to help their own communities. so we need to be sensitive on that. and i would urge other commissioners to also think the same. >> (inaudible). >> i believe the district bound

brinboundaries would help to put this project into better context. at this moment, it is a large building and extremely difficult to understand, partially because it is not where i believe it should have come to, which is the central soma plant. in addition to that, it's just basically a large oversight project floating like an island on it own. toui would like to see a liberan on the exact criteria that this project is not in c3 but in c3g

district. this building seems to be emulating extremely high density and that's why it appears in a somewhat missing context. i would also like to see further expiration and comment and details of what san francisco design plan envisioned for this. there are photographs, diagrams and maps that are missing. i would like to go and explore the question and ask why it could comply in project. it's not the baseline. it could comply in project that would be designed for a 6-1. i would like to see a building without shadow impacts on important public open spaces.

i believe this is somewhat diminishing the impact and understanding of the project proposed. i would like to see a project that diagrams the building that follows the separation rules and it looks like we are being shown an excessively large building where we only asked to approve these exceptions without really

understanding what that means. my own belief is that the state density bonus does not add the numbers of the bmi units but that rather a negotiated project like former supervisor kuhn used to do. the building, i would like to see a building that respects value regulations and i would like to get a better understanding how the use and families would not be seriously impacted but wind acceleration and that particular of tim towns lots of children who walk to school and i believe that myself walking in that area often and frequently impacted for high

winds and i'm not a frail person, but i do feel the impact of wind in that area and i would like that to be considered for the children walking on the street, as well. i have other concerns about impact, excessive soil, why are we considering that amount of escalation for a large amount of cars when we're adjacent to all transit lines that could be ever put together usually five minutes away. that, indeed, also raises the question of site access as mentioned by the other commissioners.

quality of open space do not provide a rear yard. i see an insufficient detail even on the conceptual building design, no matter what alternative. i'm interested in quality of unit lay-outs which many had eirs show in project discussion. we want to avoid unnecessary bedrooms. we understand this is a market rate building and we want to examine to the flaws being proposed. i have to say that i do not see any justification or any kind of

discussion on project objectives. in many cases we do have a habit of that and i see the possibility of great impact of gentrification, especially social and equity impacts on the soma families. i think in closing, i think this is a market rate driven project and i'm wondering why the top floor would have a five-bedroom unit. it is from a conceptual design a tower mass in diagram which completely disrespects contexts and side setting.

by coin coincidence by researcht happened in this area, i ran across a site study conducted by a highly qualified architect in the city. there was a site study for this particular project site. while i do not have numerical data in terms of how many units it generated, it is a far more interesting design and again, i feel that numbers, numerical numbers of units are driving the design which seems to be significantly impacting, to say the least. i want to add that i believe that the project adds -- that this project impacts the attempts to revitalize and bring this back to life. i believe this is the surrounding context of plazas is being threatened by the massive

overtower over the entire setting. the stevenson project seems to not understand a small scale restoration and stewardship that people have taken to really bring this part of the older portion of downtown back to a life of its own. it's a lovely, wonderful part and i think we should take a protective attitude towards. and i want to restate my objection that the entitled 5m project and the benefits to the community have not at all been taken into consideration. i would like to ask for something which we have never done before. i think miss kobande and i speakers with permission,

summarize very well that the community most affected by this project is one that is people with lesser means, small, diminished access to technology and i'm asking whether or not we to potentially have a second viewing. hopefully back at city hall, where people from the community could come and comment in-person on what they're not able to do today. i believe that would be us practicing social and environmental equity and i strongly urge that the commission as a body considers holding a special hearing for live comments on the subject matter.

>> i would like a clarification from my fellow commissioners. i appreciate you reflecting on the project itself and the things you would like to see. is this recommendation something different from line of questioning or conversation between commissioner diamond and director hillis related to the fact that this project -- it would come back at the end of the year. but there would be a public hearing before that. hopefully in the fall and that is a time in which we all hope

we are in person. just wanted to make sure that we're being as clear as possible about the recommendation. >> our understanding is to have an additional public hearing, not necessarily on a draft eir but on the project itself prior and somewhat well before the approval hearing that's anticipated at the end of the year. just so you know, we've extended the period from the 27th to may 11th already. >> commissioner fung. >> sorry about that. i tried a couple of times to try to type my name but it wasn't sending through, but i guess this time it worked. i will be issuing a couple of

comments on the dir with respect to the cultural artifacts. given the history of this area and its use during the gold rush days and other things, i think there will be a number of questions i would like to raise. overall, the draft eir is comprehensive enough to be able to initiate this process, both the environmental entitlement issues that have been brought up hopefully will be resolved and unimaginatively designed building will go through its process. >> commissioner imperial. >> my request was to forward a comment. i understand the comment right now is extended -- submitting

comments until may 11th. my request is to extend the request until the shelte shelter-in-place is lifted, where the people can come to city hall and can also give comments and whether there's a more extensive time in giving comments. this is a time where there is a pandemic and people's worries are everywhere. my request is to extend the comment until shelter-in-place is lifted. >> so before we call on anybody else, i'm in favour of initiating what we're looking at today. i do feel that we are going to hold an informational hearing before the approval to get a lot of the real issues addressed and that the comment period was

extended and so again, this is just a drafting environmental impact report section and so, seeing as though we're just at the very beginning, in support of approving today. >> commissioners, i will remind you, there's to action today. we're just receiving public comment. >> seeing nothing further, chen, i want to make absolutely certain there's no one in the cue on the phone-in line. >> q & a was deactivated after public comment was closed. >> very good. commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to item 14 for case 2018-001191c at 93-97 leeland avenue. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to present? >> yes. just before i stopped, i just want to make sure if you can hear me well. >> yes, we can.

thank you. >> awesome. good afternoon. the item before you is a conditional use authorization for planning code sections 303 and 317, for two units within the nc2 zoning district. the project proposed to demolish two units on lot 37 at 93 and 95 leeland avenue, including approximately 720 square-foot single-family residence in the year yard and a unit on the second floor of the historic building fronting leeland avenue. also, approximately 400 square foot non-habitable shed on lot 28 is also proposed to being demolished with new construction of an approximately 6,800 square

feet been with ground floor retail and seven units. the project also proposed a merger on lots 28 and 37. the majority of the historic building will be preserved, including the two commercial units on the ground floor and one on the second floor. in total, the project site includes eight dorming units, three ground floor commercial units and a class one and class two bicycle tenants. the units to be preserved on the second floor on leeland avenue is occupied. the tenants were relocated from the rear single-family residence in february of 2018. currently, the other two units that are proposed to be demolished are vacant and there's no evidence of any evictions on the property.

the project complies with the planning code section 317. for public average, sponsor hosted one meeting on august 11, 2018. to date, the department received two public correspondents on the design details which those could be refined when the applications are submitted after the entitlement. in conclusion, the department finds the project is balanced consistent with the general plan and consistent with the development patterns and will respond to the neighborhood character along leeland avenue. although this results in a loss of two existing units, it does provide five new units and they

contain two or more bedrooms. this would be a mix of goods and services available in the district and economic and vitality of the neighborhood by adding new commercial space. the department also finds the projects will be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and not to be detrimental to the adjacent property. this concludes the staff's presentation. the project sponsor is ready for presentation. thank you. >> ok, do we have a project

sponsor. maybe this would be a good transmission. commissioners, we are experiencing technical difficulty with the at&t bridge, so if we could pause for a moment and allow my staff to rebridge the at&t conference line. chan, can you rebridge and then notify us? or actually -- >> i could activate the question and answer mode. >> why don't you activate that, then. project sponsor, do you have a presentation? >> operator: press 1 and then 0.

>> hello. so i'm mark bucarelli, the architect and i think the staff report put all of the bullet points i had outlined. so i mean, if you have some questions, we would be happy to answer them. >> is there anyone in cue for public comment. >> yes. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: can you hear me? >> we certainly can. >> question: this is russell marine and i sent a letter about the project earlier this week. i just wanted to give my general support of the project. i attended the pre-application meeting in 2018, so the project

evolved a little bit from then and slightly better, but it also fills at this point still a little bit finished and i detailed that in the lotter. specific the ground floor residential unit at the rear, the adaptable unit looks like it needs some work. the rear yard needs attention and the commercial storefronts, which is something we're concerned about, they need a little bit more definition in how they'll be designed. there is the highest commercial vacancy rate in the city. it's not one, but the highest. we have a lot of commercial vacant buildings and that is important that the commercial part is correct that we get it right so we don't have additional vacancy. there was a building completed next door to this about three or four years ago, maybe, and had the commercial storefront and it's been vacant ever since.

brand new building, storefront, vacant and nothing has changed. so when we have these extra ones, we don't want four in a row. so in general, i support project and hope the planning commission puts pressure on them to refine the storefront so that we know what we'll get and some perfected tenants can get in there and understand what it will take to bring a business instead of having an empty shell that it's not going to be viable to a business. so, again, hopefully the project will move forward. one thing in the conditions of approval, but there's a three-year window that if the project doesn't move forward in three years, they would have to come back to resubmit or maybe two years. if it's three years, it will be three years before the project moves forward. so two years before the project expires and maybe it will move further.

that's the end of my comments. thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: i'm following up on russell's comments and i want to say i support his comments and his suggestions. like you said, this area is depressed or a depressed area of san francisco. a lot of attention is needed for this particular project. overall, i do support the project, but there's a lot of questions that need to be answered and a lot of refinements that need to be attended to. and, also, i would like to see some of the elements from the older building incorporated in the new construction and that's

in 2.6. and like russell stated wound of the comments and the case in the backyard, i think that's something that should looked into. that's possibly where people who work at home and an area where people who don't want to be in their house have an ability to go where it's secure and safe and design where people who actually congregate and work on their computers or work from home. and the location of the bike or bike storage, i think that's concerning. also, the commercial space, the way it's laid out on the new construction is a little bit perplexing. i would like that to be attended to, as well as the old commercial space.

we need to specify how those two units would be brought up to code and one of the units are missing a restroom. overall, i hope we can communicate with the project sponsor and architect and planning department and refine this project. most importantly, that this project establish a baseline of when it is expected to be built in the future because it will be new construction on this avenue, leeland avenue. so we would like to establish a baseline, what to expect in quality and design. i thank you for your time and appreciate you taking my comments. goodbye. (bell ringing). >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> very good. admissionerscommissioners, i bee matter is before you now.

commissioner diamond. >> i have a question for staff and it relates -- (inaudible). >> given concerns about the viability of retail going forward, is it possible to allow him a flexibility of doing either residential or retail on the ground-floor? and if that's possible and they do residential, does that mean increased number of units or a change in the lay-out of units? and is that done over the counter, with staff? does it have to come back to the commission? if you could lay out for me the process, i would appreciate it. >> yes, sure. so the project located in the nc2 family district which allows but does not require ground-floor commercial space along leeland avenue. so basically, both residential

and most of the retail use are permitted. the retail use on the ground floor, right? but down the road, if the project is sponso sponger sponsr mind, they don't have to go back to a planning commission or they don't need another 30 days on the neighborhood notification. those can be done over the counter. but i do want to mention because right now they are maximizing their density, so if they want to increase the residential use on to the ground floor, they can make the 15 units bigger. and so if the commissioners do want to put a condition of approval, that is fine. you can add it in the approval stating that the commission

encourages the ground floor residential and that meets the ground floor residential. if the project sponsor were to apply to change to residential, you can do the ground floor at a later date. >> thank you. commissioners, i welcome your feedback on whether or not you would be open to such a condition and it seems to make sense to me and i welcome your feedback. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm interested in pursuing that right, commissioner diamond. the only thing i would ask is that there's a little bit

attention given to unit design because even on the ground floor now, there's a particular weakness with the bedroom facing the public walkway, which is in most cases not an igo location because you have a relatively narrow walkway into the rear of the building. i would, indeed, report that and we could make a motion to craft it. i just don't know how to form formulate that. maybe mr. ionan can help. >> commissioner fung. >> question for staff. is there any question related to exposure requirements? >> so the project is

co-compliant so the units on leeland avenue, they meet the exposure requirements facing the public right-of-way. and the units on the back, they are facing a co-complaint rear yard. so it also meets the exposure requirements. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i fully support the idea of flexibility for the retail, given that we have spoken about so much in this hearing and the new landscape, thinking about just giving flexibility for homes. i did want to clarify on the record what the issue of the one residential unit on the sixth floor that is currently occupied

and the tenants located from the rear single-family residence, do you know what is going to happen after? can you add a little more context to that? >> maybe project sponsor on the phone call can answer that question. >> can you hear me? i'm speaking on a phone through my architect's computer. >> yes, we can hear you. >> if the intent to maintain the current tenants and occupants and that they would be temporarily relocated pursuant to the control board, you know, provisions and be allowed to reoccupy the new units when

they're completed. >> thank you. >> just in response to commissioner moore. if your request to add a condition of approval was related to flexibility, i believe you woul the staff pland indicate there would be no requirement for additional approvals to modify the plans from retail to accessory dwelling units or increasing the size of existing units into the ground level. >> commissioner moore.

>> i would be amenable to support an adu because in in part of town, there is a need for smaller unit housing and is a working-class neighborhood where i think an added unit won't be appropriate rather than just enlarging it and it would give the applicant for flexibility to phase in the other unit whether than deciding from the get-go how to do that. the only condition i would ask is that the unit design be refined to look at the two unitc walkways and a few of the public responses made, bu. basically we are not here to resign the project because it's a good idea and i'm in full support. it's to ask for an

additionallasadditionaladu for . >> commissioner johnson. >> with the president use, to put another sentence qualifying what was said, that the tenants would not only be relocated but the board would return. >> commissioner diamond. >> i think i heard the

appropriate condition had something to do with compliance, if they change the ground floor to residential, that it be done with the residential guidelines. is that what staff was suggesting by nature of a condition? >> i believe they would have to, but i think commissioner moore offered the other suggestion that if it was converted, the preference would be for an adu instead of enlarging a unit. >> and does that require compliance with the residential design guidelines, the adu? >> yes. >> yobut i believe you can add that as a condition as well as the language. >> the bottom of the building looks like it's retail space and if they change it to residential, whether it's adu or enlarged units, i don't want it to look like retail space.

>> mr. sucray, did you have something to add? >> yes, i think as was mentioned in the findings that compliance with the ground floor residential design guidelines would probably be the most appropriate and that way, then, we can work with the project sponsor on crafting the ground floor to fit within the neighborhood and meet the established guidelines that we have city-wide. >> well, i would be in favor of attaching that commissioner. >> commissioner, imperial. >> i just would like to support commissioner johnson's comments in adding some language about the tenants that will be -- that can come back or i believe is somewhat occupied and can come back because of the rent loss.

>> so would anyone care to make a motion? >> i made a motion, but it kind of got pushed into the back. i made a motion to approve with the caveat that the regional space would be converted to an adu, that the resigners would follow the residential guidelines and that the rent-controlled unit and the renter living in that unit would be coming back to the building once the building is completed. >> commissioner fung. >> i think the project as proposed has residential units in it, and i'm not prepared

to -- (inaudible). >> commissioner fung, issue think you have a bad connection and you may want to repeat your comments. >> the question of having neglecflexibility changing to residential and whether it's the residential space, that's fine. >> i believe that is the motion, that to allow for the flexibility. >> can everybody hear me. >> yes, commissioner fung, we can hear you. >> i believe it's to allow for flexibility, not requiring an adu.

>> so the way i heard it -- ok. >> commissioner diamond. >> yeah, i definitely would be in favour of the flexibility, definitely not a mandate, and i also don't necessarily want a mandate that if it is residential, that they choose that, that they have to be adus. if they end up with larger units that have more bedrooms, that's more conducive for families, i would be supportive of that, too. so i don't necessarily want to limit this to adu should they choose to change from retail to residential. >> there's a motion and do i hear a second? commissioner moore? commissioner moore, i believe your mic is turned off.

>> i said the motion is about flexibility and i just wanted to reaffirm that. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i'll second that. >> great. and just for clarification purposes, in response to commissioner diamond's suggestion, that it not necessarily be an adu, if i heard your presentation correctly, this project is at its density limit and so the only way to add to it would be through an adu. is that correct? >> yes, sorry, i dropped my computer and it just froze. yes, because they maximized the density, they can only maximize the adu if they increase the density. >> i wanted that on the recommendation for you, commissioner diamond. there is a motion and a second to approve this project with

conditions as have been amended to include a finding related to rank stabilization for the existing tenants and the ability to return and provide flexibility for the ground floor to be converted to residential. that would be adding an adu and that in case of conversion to residential that the ground floor would have to comply with the ground floor design guidelines. on that motion, commissioner diamond? >> just a second, i think there's something about the preference for an adu or not. i think that the -- commissioner moore, was that your motion? >> no, i said flexibility. i think the ideal flexibility is better and because we cannot really at this moment decide what potential technical issues

come into play and let's just say flexibility. >> very good. so no preference to adu or expanding of existing residential units. commissioner fung. aye. >> commissioner imperial. a earthquakes. ye. >> commissioner johnston. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commissioner president koppel. >> that passes 6-0 unanimously. >> we have one in the cue.

>> through the chair, do you want to take this public comment? >> can we? >> you could take the public comment and if they sway you one or anotheway or another, you cad your vote. >> i think it would be good to hear. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: this is nelson again. i heard the conversation about the flexibility on the commercial storefront on the new development and i just wanted to state that there's been changes on the redevelopment project, removing more of the commercial space that was proposed on that development and now only the grocery store, at 50,000 square

feet, even though it's part of the dr -- (inaudible). >> public comment is now closed. >> you have already testified, sir. >> i know, but i can make a followup comment? >> so we can now move on to item 15, case number 2016-00447, texas street. this is a conditional use authorization and staff, are you prepared to present. >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the planning department staff and i do want to make sure that you can hear and see me before i proceed. >> we can, thank you. >> the item before is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317 to allow demolition of an existing two-story single-family dwelling circa 1907 and new construction of a four story two

family dwelling in an rh2 zoning district and height and bolt district. the proposed project would demolish 1,587 square foot bedroom which is vacant. it has been declared unsound prepared by a qualified consultant and tha this was incd your packet. they submit a form for the number of existing units at the subject property. upon review, staff determined the existing building contains only one residential unit. the proposal includes new construction of a four-story, 4,112 square-foot building containing two residential building units, three off-street parking spaces and four bicycle parking spaces and meeting requirements of the planning code. the draft motion you were provided with today incorrectly stated those units will contain

three bedrooms. while unit one contains three bedrooms, unit two contains four bedrooms and this will be corrected in the final motion. to date, the department received core sponcorrespondence from tw. both suggest that the existing building may have been constructed as a refugee cottage following the 1906 earthquake and fire. the preservation staff requested additional analysis of the potential status as a refugee cottage from a qualified consultant review. staff found the existing building does not meet the dimensions with refugee cottages and does not retain features on the buildings which have been identified as cottages throughout the city to date. as a result, staff reclassified this to a resource status of c, meaning that no historic

resources are located at the property. the department finds the department is on o balance with the rh2 district and guidelines and the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will remove a nonhistoric structurally unstable building which is currently vacant and maximize the residential density allowed by the planning code at the subject parcel by constructing a new two-family residential building. because the subject building is vacant, no existing tenants will be displaced by the proposal. further, both proposed residential units will contain three or more bedrooms, making the new building suitable for families. it's compatible with scale and mapping and designed to meet modern life safety. this is compatible with the neighborhood and not detrimental to persons in the community. this concludes the presentation and the project sponsor should be on the line and we are both available to answer any

questions you may have. >> someone needs to mute their mic. we can hear the delayed broadcast. thank you. project sponsor, if you're online, we are prepared to take your presentation. you need to turn off or silence your television or your computer that you're watching. >> computer is now silenced. thank you. >> thank you.

go ahead, sir. >> go ahead and present? >> yes. >> my name is ross levy. i'm the architect for this project. i believe that planning staff is following along with a presentation that has a script to change slides as i speak, so let's hope that that works. and i'm showing you images of the context in the neighborhood. it is an unsound, two-story one unit building from the early 1900s. the neighborhood is of a varied character. buildingsrange from two to four stories tall. the second slide is a rear yard, which is a large rear yard and upsloping and this is in a valley and appears to be downsloping when viewed from the street and slopes back up into the rear yard.

aerial view of the subject property, just to give you a sense of the immediate environment, pretty consistent mid-block open space which our project preserves and respects and, also, the varied types of architecture and bulks of building in the immediate area. and you'll see that in another aerial photos photo, as well. the roof plan, most important feature there is a large side yard or a continuous side yard along the south edge of our proposal that allows light and air in a sub terrain-i terrain l that will be important for plans going forward for a two-unit building and we show roof decks and setbacks per planning code and residential design guidelines. basement floor plan shows a two

bedroom family size living unit. this is at the basement level because the street level is the level above it just as defined by the relationship of the base eelevation to the sidewalk and street level which requires any off-street parking enter on the level above this. that is the next floor level which is a parking garage with some utilities in site circulation and this parking garage is a reasonable size for three cars to move independently and there's a reason we will discuss later. on the floor above, you have a bedroom -- two bedrooms, kitchen and dining areas for a family-sized housing unit and we're proposing now a two-unit building to replace a current

single-unit building. and then on the level above this, we have a living are livid a master suite. the reason that this unit was designed so graciously was that we had anticipated that this may become a three-unit building in the future per pending adu legislation and that legislation has now passed at the state level and we have designed this building with both this upper floor and with the larger parking provisions to provide for a third unit to actually be within the building mass, something i would like to talk to commissioner to take up as they discuss our project this afternoon. and the section just showing you that we're well below the height limits in the 40x zoning area, reasons being the relationship of the lot to the street that i spoke about previously and, also, just the immediate context

and the appropriate scale and mass for a new structure in this location. we are showing you a couple of perspectives from the street and a marina style, very simple front, but a contemporary take on a san francisco type of architecture related to the '40s is '50s architecture and the earlier flat-front edwardian architecture and simple window designs and an advisory team to relate to the immediate context and ultimately, a building that in three dimensions fits in well with its neighbors in the size, form and dispostion and provides much-needed houses, potentially up to three units. although, two units are we would have applied for because this is

what the code allowed at the time the application was submitted. i'll pass it back to the commission secretary. >> great. i think that presentation went very well. why don't we open up to q & a chn, and i chan and if mee public would like to speak, enter 1-0 to get into the cue. >> opening. >> are there any members in the cue. >> not yet.

>> commissioners, why don't you deliberate and chan, notify us if anybody does enter the cue. >> will do. >> i'm asking mr. levy to please go over the adu. that was a little garbled on my end. >> yes, thank you, commissioner moore. if staff is listening, thes ea easiest way is to look at slide number 11, monica, if you're out there. and commissioner moore, the answer to your question is we're looking at a four-level building

and the basement level is a unit and we have good exposure there and so that is a very viable unit and then we have a level of parking in circulation and two residential levels shown on top of the parking. those two residential levels are currently joined as a single unit, but we've designed the project so that the upper level might be broken off pretty simply and become an independent unit, so i'm prepared to make this a three-unit building and i believe the project sponsor would like to make a three-unit building and i believe the current code actually allows for it to be a three-unit building, but that was not the code at the time that we made this application. >> thank you, i appreciate you setting it up that way.

i like the building and like what i see and i'm curious what my other fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner fung. commissioner, is your mic on?i believe commissioner fung may be experiencing technical difficulties. and we have one person in cue, so maybe we should take the public comment. >> let's try the cue. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: hello, this is jeremy paul. i'm commenting on the avu aspect of this project.

can you please confirm you can hear me in. >> yes, we can hear you. >> thanks very much. so as of january 1st, 2020. 2020, ab68 became law which allowed for anasm du to be installe proa new structure. i'm very excited about this new legislation. i'm looking forward to seeing it implemented. i'm very pleased that mr. levy has incorporated an adu in this structure respectively so it can be easily adapted for use under the adu legislation and i would like to compliment this design and support this project. thank you so much. >> so is frank back on? if not, we can call on --

>> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> commissioner fung, are you back on? >> yes, my connection was going in and out. >> we can hear you now. actually, it cut back out again. >> commissioner fung, try it without the video. >> can you hear? >> try to do it without the video playing. turn your camera off. >> turn the camera off. how is that? is that better? >> yes. >> well, now we can hear you. >> ok. i have to issues with the conditional use for the

demolition and i'm prepared to move to support the granting of the conditional use. >> second. >> second. >> second. >> we have one more. commissioner diamond, did you want to speak? >> i'm in favour of this project whether it's a two-unit project, whether it'or adu. i'm prepared to comment. >> commissioners, thank you for your comments and i just wanted to say i think that potentially just like in the last project that required condition of approval as the adu, i would ask you craft something similar so that the project sponsor is able to revise plans and then not have to bring this back to the commission. >> so that actually was my question to the maker of the motion. commissioner fung, you did make a motion to approve this with

conditions as proposed. it's only a two-unit building. if we could get clarity from the commission that it is not opposed to adding an adu, we can certainly add that finding and then as monica is suggesting, we can prevent the matter from coming back to the planning commission. commissioner fung, are yo you amenable of accepting an adu if the cosponsor chooses to add one? >> that's acceptable to me. >> and is the second amenable? >> yes. >> then commissioners, to approve this matter finding that an adu can be added. commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye.

>> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> complicationer johnston. aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye and commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> that passes 6-0 and for the benefit of the public, the dr calendar was essentially continued. item 1 16 to june 18 and item 17 to june 21. and there no other items on the agenda today. >> thank you. >> i will ajourn. >> very good. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> great, good morning, everyone. the meeting will and to order. welcome to the meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i'm supervisor rafael mandelman, the chair. and we're joined by vice chair supervisor stefani and supervisor walton and i want to thank the fine folks for staffing this meeting as well as the operations and i.t. for lending their support to this first remote meeting of our committee. and for all that you are all doing to keep all of our meetings running smoothly, which i know that is challenging in these times.

and mr. clerk do you have announcemented? >> clerk: due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect city employees, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and the committee room are closed. the members are participating in the meeting remotely, the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment is available for each item on the agenda, both cable channel 26 and sfggovtv.org are streaming. and the ability to speak during the comment period are available by calling 888-204-5984. and you can utilize an access code. the code is, 3501008. i'll repeat those numbers, the calling number is 888-204-5984.

and the access code is, 3501008. and once callers are connected they s3501008. and once callers are connected they should press the pound symbol. and then press the pound symbol again. and then after they're connected if they wish to speak they should dial 1 and then dial 0, in order to be added to the queue to speak to that particular agenda item. they are lined up in the order which they dial 1 and 0. while waiting the system will be silent. the calling system will notify you when you are in line and waiting. all callers remain on mute until their line is opened for comment. everyone must account for the time delays and speaking discrepancies between the live coverage and streaming. we have about a one or two second delay. and best practices are to call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turn down

your television, radio or your streaming device. alternatively you may submit your public comments in either of the following ways -- you can email me johncarol, and my email address is john.carroll@sfgov.org. to repeat that, that is john.carroll@sfgov.org. if you submit public comment by email it's in the legislative files as part of the matters. written comments may be sunday by u.s. postal service to city hall room 244, san francisco, california, 94102 and that address is available on the agenda for this meeting. and, mr. chair, the items today are expected to appear on the.

the agenda of april 21st agenda unless otherwise noted. >> can you call our first item. >> clerk: agenda one is a hearing to consider the issuance of a type 21 off-sale general beer, wine and distilled spirit liquor license for the epicurian trader l.l.c. and located at 1 ferry building. and it will serve the public convenience or the necessity of the city and county. the members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item call the number that i mentioned earlier and printed on your agenda and dial 1, 0 now to be added to the queue. >> i believe that we have the officer here to present on this item? >> yes, good morning. >> good morning. >> okay. so you have before you a report for the epicurian trader and they have applied for a type 21,

41, 86 license and if approved this allows them to separate in off-sale general to sell beer and wine anyplace and a tasting type license. there are zero letters of protest, zero letters of support. they are located at plot 216, which is considered a high crime area. and they are in a high saturation area and no opposition. and recommends approval on the following conditions -- number one, winetasting is conducted there should be signs in a conspicuous space, that the entrance and/or the exits of the premise as depicted on 257 which state no alcoholic beverages beyond this point. said times shall be no less than 7-inch by 11-inch in size and contain letters no less than one inch in sign. two, signs posted that no minors are allowed in the tasting area

as of april 1st, they have not agreed formally to the conditions. >> they have and they have not? >> they have not as of april 1st. >> okay. and if we could ask the applicant about that. thank you, officer. do we have matt pawns on the line? or another representative of the applicant? >> the applicant is matt pond and matt pond is on the call-in line and our operations team could unmute mr. pond's phone number so he can speak to our committee now. >> he is ready to speak. >> clerk: mr. pond? >> hi, guys. everybody hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. so first of all, thanks for the

meeting and i know that it's been difficult for everybody to try to push things forward and we appreciate everybody working hard to keep the process moving forward. firstly, as it provides to the conditions, you know, i think that in the hustle and bustle of shelter-in-place and trying to run a business that just was missed but we're fully supportive of the conditions and we have no objection and we're more than happy to put that on the record and anything that is required. and just everybody on the phone call knows, the epicurian trader and the suggestions -- hopefully that will clear that matter up. and, secondly, you know, as i sort of think about, you know, the essence of this topic which is whether it's a public convenience and a necessity, i think about our other locations and in moments like this i think that it's very paramount and

clear that we are a necessity to these neighborhoods. if we were not currently opened, you know, the residents would have very limited or zero access to fresh produce and milk, eggs, fresh bread. and so i think that, you know, i think that it's highlights how big a necessity that having a quality grocer, san francisco-run, and locally owned and operated, you know, how critical it is for the residents of those neighborhoods. you know, and the financial district is in a similar pocket. there's very limited access to quality grocers in that part of town. and, you know, we strive to offer a similar selection as we do in the neighborhoods and try to become a convenience for the people -- th that work in the aa or use the ferry building as a means of transportation. and so, you know, we hope that

you guys recognize that what we do, we do things by the book. we definitely strive to try to adapt and to become part of the neighborhood and hopefully some of the board of supervisors who have had other locations in the neighborhoods have experienced that either firsthand or through, you know, comments from the constituents. >> thank you, mr. pond. i don't see any comments or questions from my colleagues. so we can open this up to members of the public if any have called in. mr. clerk, are there any callers on the line? >> clerk: mr. chair, staff is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. >> one second, please. >> clerk: thank you.

a reminder for anyone who may have called in, if you want to speak on agenda item 1, you dial 1, and then 0, after you have connected to our public line and entered the access code. >> there appears to be one caller. >> clerk: great. >> i will say some things about public comment. we give our speakers two minutes and we ask that you state your first and last names clearly. okay. i'm going over public comments and the speakers will have two minutes and we have to hear your first and last name clearly and speak directly into the phone. if you have a written statement that you have prepared, you are encouraged to send a copy to the committee clerk for the official file. and in the interest of time we

ask that speakers avoid repetition of previous statements, though we only have one public commenter, that's not going to be a problem. so, please, go ahead. >> you can begin now. have we connected the first caller? >> yes, we have. hello, caller, can you hear us? >> that caller is not mr. pond, right? >> clerk: it shows mr. pond -- >> all right, well, we already heard from mr. pond. so it sounds like we don't have any additional public comment on this item. and so i'm going to close public comments now.

and bringing the imaginary gavel down. and so, again, no comments or questions -- i don't see any comments or questions from my colleagues. i understand that supervisor peskin is supportive of this item. moving forward, i think that it is reasonable to expect that the applicant can meet the conditions and formally agreed to the conditions before this gets voted on with the board of supervisors. i'm hoping that will happen. and i'll probably ask to confirm -- our office will make sure that has happened before this is voted on, board of supervisors. but with all of that said, i think that we can direct our clerk to prepare resolution determining the issuance of the license to serve the public necessity and i will make a motion to send that forward to the full board with positive recommendation. and, mr. clerk, can you call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to

recommend a resolution to the full board of supervisors, that finds that the service premise would meet the public convenience or necessity, vice chair stefani? >> aye. i got it. thank you. >> clerk: stefani, aye. member walton. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> clerk: walton, aye. chair mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: great, the motion passes. thank you, everyone. we got through one, one more to go. clerk, call the next item. >> clerk: pardon me, just a moment. agenda item 2, is a hearing to consider that the transfer of a type 20 off-sale beer and wine liquor license to d.p. and d.k. investments incorporated doing business as kal neighborhood maisht at 19th avenue, will serve the public convenience or

necessity of the city and county of the and the members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the public comment line and enter the access code and then queue up by pressing 1, and then 0. you should do so now. mr. chair. >> supervisor mandelman: great. thank you. and, again, we'll start with officer samuelson from the a.l.u. >> all right, you have before you a report for d.p. and d.k. investments inc, and applied for a type 20 license and this allows them to operate in an all of-sale beer and liquor premise. and zero letters of opposing and they are in a low crime area, they are in census track 32601, which is considered high saturation, and no opposition. a.l.u. recommends approval with the following conditions. number one, sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted

only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. each day of the week. number two, the participants shall monitor the area under their control to prevent the loitering of persons on any property adjacent to the licensed premise as depicted on the most recently certified form. and number three, the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining it free of litter area adjacent to the premise over which they have control as depict. and noted as of april 1st, the applicant had agreed to the above listed conditions. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, officer samuelson. and then we will hear from the applicant. is jodie knight or the applicant on the line? >> clerk: we have sabrina shaggy on the line. if you could unmute her mike so she can -- her mic so she can address the panel. >> good morning, supervisors.

we appreciate you hearing -- we appreciate you hearing this item today. i'm sabrina shaggy and i'm speaking on behalf of the project sponsor. and the gas station has been operating at the site for decades and includes a building with an awtdo repair station and a small food mart. the owners propose to put the auto repair station to a more beneficial use by expanding this into the rest of the existing building. the planning commission unanimously approved the project on consent. although this is a chevron gas station it's a family-owned and operated franchise where the owners take great pride in being part of this community. their goal is to provide a true neighborhood serving market in response to the needs of their customers. the expanded food mart will include the sale of general grocery items, fresh coffee, made-made food and personal items, as well as beer and wine. so that the local residents can conveniently pick up most of the

items they need while stopping for gas. 37 neighbors and customers have signed a petition or written letters in support of the project and stating that this type of market would be beneficial to the neighborhood. aside from providing a one-stop-shop for customers, the addition of beer and wine sales will provide a much-needed increase in revenue which is crucial for the long-term viability of the gas station. in turn, this will help to preserve jobs for current employees and to provide new employment opportunities in the neighborhood. given the current economic crisis, it's imperative that the city support neighborhood serving and family-owned businesses. aside from the conditions that the police department has imposed and the owners have agreed to, the owners are also taking a number of other safety precautions. they're not providing any beer or wine near the entrance, they're requiring all employees to complete abc's online training course and the site will be monitored at all times for the insulation of 11 security cameras. and the owners have no tolerance

for any loitering and they take the maintenance of the property seriously. and the addition of this type 20 license will ensure the continued viability of the gas station and most importantly it will look at the needs of those that live and work in the neighborhood. for these reasons we respectfully request that you forward this to the full board for positive recommendation. thank you and i'm available for any questions. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. i don't see any comments or questions from my colleagues. so i will open this up to public comment. do we have any callers in the queue? >> clerk: mr. chair, staff will check to see if there's callers in the queue. mr. chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> supervisor mandelman: great. i will close public comment. and, colleagues, i understand that supervisor mar is not in

opposition to this license, he supports sending this item forward to the full board. given that, i think we can direct our clerk to prepare a resolution to determine the issuance of the license for public convenience and subsidy and i'll make a motion to send that resolution to the full board with positive recommendation. clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to amend the resolution pending public convenience or necessity findings for the applicant, vice chair stefani. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> clerk: stefani, aye. supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> clerk: walton, aye. is it chair mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> clerk: there's no further business. >> supervisor mandelman: then we are adjourned. thank you, everyone. >> clerk: thank you.

>> thank you, chair mandelman. >> welcome to the april 13, 2020 meeting. i am joined by video conference with vice chair supervisor stephanie and supervisor gordon mar and i'd like to thank sf gov tv for staffing this

meeting. any announcements? >> to protect members, city employees and the public, the legislative chamber and k committee rooms are closed. however, members will be participating remotely at the same extent as if they were present. public comment will be available for each item on this agenda, both the channel 26 and sfgov.org are streaming across the screen. call (888)204-5504. when you are connected, dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the key. you will be lined up in the system that you dial 1 and 0. while you're waiting, the system will be silent and notify you

when you're in line and waiting. all will remain online. everyone must account for the time delay between live coverage and streaming. alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways, email me at victor young. if you submit public comment via email, it will be included as part of the matter. written comments may be sent to city hall 1, doctor carlton b. goodlet place, san francisco, california, 94102. that completes my announcements. >> thank you so much, and can you please read item number one? >> an emergency ordinance to temporarily require private employers with 500 or more

employees to provide emergency leave during the public health emergency related to covid-19. >> thank you. any opening comments? >> thank you, chair ronen. colleagues, as you may recall, this item is to move forward one amendment that was made to the public health emergency league ordinance at last week's roll committee meeting. the amendments that we're considering to the public health emergency leave ordinance applies to section 5 and it pertains to allowable uses of emergency leads and only applies to employees who are healthcare providers and this amendment was crafted to balance the need for healthcare providers and similarly are healthcare workers to be able to take time off when they're sick or need to

quarantine and balance that need with the urgent need of maintaining our healthcare wor workforce. to thithis provides leave whose employers can opt out of the leave expansion. and it goes without saying that healthcare providers should gott go to work when sick or quarantined. this ordinance will give them expanded pay leave to use if they're sick or quarantined. we know that pfizer sent a letter asking for an exemption but we disagree that healthcare providers should be exempt. there's been discussion with the hospital council and northeast medical services, a major

nonprofit healthcare clinic that has a significant place in my district. if healthcare employers are offering paid leave, it will count towards the additional 80 hours and to ensure we don't short staff this ordinance. its uses are incredibly narrow and only apply in cases where it's in the interest of public health for healthcare providers not to go to work. and it does not allow uses of public health emergency leaves by healthcare providers for a border range of uses that are allowed for workers at businesses with more than 500 employees that are covered by the public health emergency leave ordinance. so colleagues, i thank you for your support in the public

health emergency leave ordinance last week and also that the full board last week and without your support, i'm moving this further amendment that would provide additional leave for healthcare providers in a more similar range of uses. >> thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor stephanie, my comments? >> no, i don't, thank you. >> why don't we open this item up for public comment. mr. clerk, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call the number and present 1 and 0 to line up to speak.

>> please allow me to check the cue. >> no problem. >> no callers wishing to speak. >> with that, public comment is closed. i'm happy to make a motion to put this to the full board to the committee with full recommendation. can we take a role call on that motion. >> on that motion, supervisor stephanie. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> chair ronen. >> aye. >> the motion passes and in matter will be recommended as the committee reports to april 14th board meeting. >> thank you so much, mr. clerk. is there any other items? >> that completes the agenda for

today. >> fantastic. fastest meeting of all time. the meeting is adjourned. have a good day everyone. >> welcome to the april 6, 2020 meeting of the rules committee. i'm supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. i'm joined on this video conference with rules committee vice chair supervisor katherine stefani. our clerk today is victor young and i'd like to thank sfgovtv

for staffing this meeting. do you have any announcements? >> yes. due to the covid-19 healthy emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public, the board of supervisors litingive chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotedly as in the same extent as if they were physically comment. -- physically present. we are streaming numbers across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. commentses or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone, by calling 888-204-5984. access code 3501008 and then press pound and dial one again. press 0 and 1 to be added to the queue. you will be lined up in the

system in order you dial 1 and 0 while you are waiting t system will be silent. the system will notify you when you are in line and waiting. all callers will remain on mute until the line is open. everyone must account for the time delay and speaking discrepancies between live coverage and streaming. al term actively, you may submit public comment, e-mail me at victor.young@sfgov.org. if you submit via e-mail, it will be included in the file as part of the matter. comments may be sent to city hall, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california. that completes my comments. >> thank you so much, mr. clerk. can you please read item number one?

>> item number one is an emergency ordinance to temporarily require private employers with 500 or more employees to provide public health emergency leave during the public health emergency related to covid-19. >> thank you so much. this is supervisor mar's item. would you like to introduce the item, supervisor mar? >> yes. thank you so much, chair ronen, for allowing us to hear this item today. an emergency ordinance before us is in response to a true emergency. the lack of sufficient paid leave for workers to follow our public health order to weather this crisis. while there is no silver bullet to our health and humanitarian emergency, this measure will give an additional two-week paid leave to hundreds of thousands of san franciscans and make a meaningful difference to countless people trying to take care of themselves and their family and make ends meet.

congress took action to expand paid leave for workers but they left out more than 50% of our workforce by excepting the largest employer. this is inexcusable. so, where our federal government is falling short, i'm taking immediate emergency action to close the gap here in san francisco. with this emergency measure, employees of private companies will be able to immediately access additional weeks of paid leave, closing the major loophole in the federal legislation in making sure that in health emergencies, workers are able to take time off -- take the time off that they need for themselves and their families. when sick people have to choose between their livelihoods or incomes, we are all worse off. when parents have to choose between a paycheck or staying home with their kids whose school is closed, we're all worse off. san francisco led the nation when we adopted our paid sick leave ordinance in 2006.

in this time of crisis, san francisco must lead again in supporting our workers. over the last two week, my office has worked with labor leaders and business stakeholders to strengthen this proposal. around today i'll be proposing a series of amendments for clarity and to ensure this measure is as inclusive and impactful as possible. i wanded to briefly go over what the ordinance is right now and summarize the key provision. first, what the ordinance does. it won't immediately give an additional two weeks of paid leave to any san francisco employee of a private company with 500 or more employees. who it covers -- every single s.f. employee of a private company with 500-plus employees. even if you're furloughed and even if you are the employee in san francisco, even if you started working a month before shelter in place, even if you are a temp worker, even if you don't live in san francisco,

but you work here. employers and health care providers are allowed to opt out. however, we're amending it to especially sure health care providers are given additional paid leave if they get sick or have to get quarantined. and all workers are presumed to be employees and covered until and unless then their employer demonstrates they are an independent contractor. now who this emergency ordinance does not cover -- people who are unemployed, public employees and they're covered bier our executive action, private employees of companies with fewer than 500 employees and they're covered by the federal law, people who do not work in san francisco and independent contractors. and when employees can use their immediate leave. if you can't work because there's shelter in place, if you have to stay home to take

care of a family member, if it's replaced with work and a you can't work remotely, if you are a member of a vulnerable population, if you're showing symptoms and if your doctor recommends you not work. so, again, i presented -- or today i'm presenting some set of amendments and there are seven different amendments and they're probably -- i believe you received a copy of the amended emergency ordinance and i'm going to summarize this up in amendments right now. number one, provide public health emergency leave to health care providers when they're subject to quarantine or sick or otherwise do not meet c.d.c. return-to-work guidelines. in number two, ex. -- expand uses of the leave for vulnerable populations including 60 or older. number three that benefits like health care can't be taken away

while employees are on leave. number four, require employer notice in english, spanish, chinese and any other language spoken by 5% or more of the workforce. number five, as information on local, state and federal resources to the notice language that they'll draft. number six, matches the health care provider definition to provider regulation. and number seven, additional paid leave voluntarily provided during the emergency toward this new requirement if the composition offered meets the standard. you know, i would like to request that deputy city attorney anne pearson provide her assessment of these amendments and whether any of these are substantive and would require continuance before the committee takes action. >> good morning. can you all hear me? >> yes. >> thanks. so i've had a chance to review

all of the amendments that supervisor mar just described and the first one on his list is one that is substantive and that is the amendment that would require health care -- employers of health care providers to provide them with leave under some limited circumstances. the other ones are not substantive and would not require a continuance today. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar, do you want to split the file and move forward the portion that's not substantive and we can continue the other just to get this moving as quickly as possible or just move them all at the same time? >> yeah. thank you. thank you, deputy city attorney pearson and chair ronen. yes, i -- in answer to your question, chair, i would like to -- i will be making a motion to duplicate the file so we can

move the nonsubstantive amendments forward as the committee records to the full board hopefully for vote and adoption tomorrow and then we can move the substantive amendment forward -- or continue it as we will need to but then move that forward hopefully a week later. i would say we want to ensure that our health care providers working on the frontlines have paid leave. so, that's important. but we don't want to hold that -- the overall important provisions of the ordinance while we have to continue that amendment. >> that makes perfect sense. i just wanted to thank you so much for bringing this forward, supervisor mar. it's pretty outrageous that the congress left out of the law

the employers that most can afford to provide this benefit. they are the biggest employers making the most money in this society and perhaps their donors to the congress members who left them out and that is why they got a break when the smaller employers didn't. we are all in this together. we are all sacrificing. we have to all sacrifice to make sure that everyone [inaudible] and i'm so grateful for you bringing this forward and if i could be added as a sponsor, i would appreciate that. supervisor stefani, do you have any comments? >> yes, thank you, supervisor ronen and i want to associate myself with your comments. i do agree on the importance and i want to thank supervisor mar for bringing this legislation forward to address the members of our workforce struggling during these difficult times. it is so important that we do

everything that we can to protect the working people who faced this crisis. and just, you know, when we think about what happened over a month ago, mayor breed directed our residents to shelter in place earlier than almost any other municipality in the united states. i'm grateful to her and our neighboring bay area counties for taking decisive action to save lives. and in doing so, when that order went into place, a number of businesses stepped up to provide extra paid time off and income security to their employees. really recognizing that there were challenging times ahead and i want to thank them and system of them are employers that had more than 500 employees so as this situation involves and this legislation has come to us quickly, which again we're reacting quickly and i thank you again for that, supervisor mar, i want to make sure we're not being punitive to those companies that have

gone above and beyond to support their workers and my hope is that, as we implement this law, wi don't punish those -- and i know that is not your intention, supervisor mar, i just want to call out the fact that there are precise steps in this ordinance and the legislation has specific requirements to add sick leave that may add up with some of the things that employers with 500 or more have done. for example, when an employer created a fund to pay employees who aren't working. i just want to make sure that we don't punish those who have stood up for their employees and even if the actions they have taken don't exactly fit the legislation today. i do plan to be supportive, of course, of this legislation. but just wanted to call that out. and make sure as we move forward, we don't punish those good actors because thankfully there are some because it does restore our faith in humanity

when we see companies taking care of their employees, as they should. thank you again and i do plan to support this today. >> supervisor? >> we will now open up this item to public comment. >> members of public online, please press 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue to speak.

>> you have four questions remaining. >> hello, i'm an organizer with sviu, united service workers west. we are an organization of almost 10,000 essential workers in san francisco. our members help to carry essential operations, including drugstores and banks and the san francisco international airport. workers should not be forced to come to work sick, ever. especially at this time. we support the emergency paid sick leave for workers and we also encourage the board to use its authority to ensure that they pass this immediately and introduce language to cover s.f.o. airport workers next. work ers should not have to choose between taking care of themselves, getting a paycheck and protecting their families. thank you.

>> you have four questions remaining. >> thank you. next speaker. >> caller: yes. i'm a member of the california faculty association at san francisco state and i'm very appreciative of this legislation. i want to say that i'm inundated we mails from students who are really, really desperate so this is essential to students. thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker? >> you have two questions remaining. >> caller: ok. [inaudible]. sorry. are you still there on the phone? now you're able to speak. >> caller: right now? >> yes.

>> caller: i can speak now? >> yes. >> caller: they can hear me now? >> yes. >> caller: ok. i work for a retail store and i would like the see if you can help us out with the bill so we can afford it to stay as [inaudible] and we can get paid when we're not working. because we have a lot of needs, medical and that is why we really should not be working outside. and people who are sick, too. i am 63 years old and have diabetes and i'm high risk to be working.

because i work in the retail. and i work with the public. with the customer. [inaudible]. i feel like we don't have to [inaudible] help us out. thank you. my number is 415-800-[inaudible] 0008. thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> caller: hi, this is collan, i'm the executive director at

the [inaudible] of justice and this is really one of the defining workers rights issues of our time which is that we see, you know, our workers' health is impacting all of us and, you know, we've had the leadership of being the first city in the country to pass paid sick leave and it is our time to lead again bypassing this health emergency leave and really rising to this moment. so much of you as supervisors really helped us, you know, take incredible action to stop this pandemic and being the first county to be in shelter in place. it's so important. and now we have another chance, i think that is key to preserve the public health by having a public health emergency leave. some of these difficult moments that people are testing, too. but one thing that i do take away as a bit of hope is that folks are realising how much of our health is linked with others around us. we're only as healthy as our

neighbor, as our neighbor's neighbor. afternoon some of the people have come together to take care of each other in this moment. and this public health emergency we're taking care of some of the most vulnerable workers who are actually serving the public every day. it is an important step. i hope you take that tomorrow. thanks. >> thank you so much. any other speakers? >> you have two questions remaining. >> next speaker, please. >> caller: this is emily abraham. from the san francisco chamber of commerce. on behalf of the san francisco chamber of commerce, i would like to note that we are proudly supportive of this resolution. we sincerely thank supervisor mar to work with his efforts to work with the san francisco chamber of commerce and offering clarifications on specifics of the ordinance and we thank supervisor stefani for her support and we appreciate

the clarity around the hours and voluntary paid leave credit [inaudible] mandate. and also clarification that [inaudible] will not occur and compensation for companies that however unlimited leave qualify. thank you for your support and efforts during this public health crisis. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> hello, my name is chris wright. i'm the executive director of the committee on jobs and association that represent the city's largest private sector employers. much of [inaudible] has been focused on our city's small businesses who are struggling. that said, every employer is suffering in this global catastrophe and each face serious threats of [inaudible].

since the mayor's stay in place order, many of our members have been closed to outright stop operations many of our own members are covered by government mandate and subsidy [inaudible]. the city clearly recognized that additional employee benefits are credited to their obligations under this new measure. prohibiting businesses from offsetting existing benefits would effectively penalizing employers with general policis in place. additionally the requirement for changing pay stubbs [inaudible] in light of the leave of this ordinance. and prior to the alleged [inaudible] of reasonable, timely and likely more effective notice, including electronic notice to their eligible employees. i want to echo the other

concerns raised by the chamber of commerce letter come friday afternoon. the main issues are complex and they deal with multilayers. as such, we respectfully act for an additional week to review the language and to improve the [inaudible] clarity. we're commited to the goals of the legislation to working with the sponsors to achieve that, which is why we'd like to make sure that it is done right. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you very much. any other speaker? >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: hi. good morning. my name is angelica. i'm with [inaudible] south of community action network. we want to thank supervisor mar for moving forward with this legislation and really hope that the committee will move this forward.

it's a very important legislation. as we take care of all the workers in san francisco this legislation this cover 200,000 workers in san francisco and we really think this legislation is much needed. thank you. >> thank you. again, other speakers? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> thank you for all the public speakers and if there are no other speakers in line, we will close public comment. >> i'm making sure there are no other speakers. >> ok. thank you. mr. clerk, can you please have a role -- roll call vote. supervisor mar made a motion to look at the file. i believe there's no objection to that motion.

is that true? >> actually, i'm sorry, chair ronen. i actually had -- it is a little complicated what i'm proposing to do here. there's actually five motions that i want to make. >> got it. sorry. go ahead. >> ok. actually, before i do that t i did want to acknowledge the comment by supervisor stefani and also that were reinforced by chris wright from the committee on [inaudible]. acknowledging the fact that many employers in san francisco have already stepped up and voluntarily provided additional paid leave to their employees in this time of crisis. so that certainly has happened. and we definitely dome want to penalize employers that have already stepped up so that is why one of the amendments that

is included today is making sure that those employers get credit for the additional paid leave that they've already voluntarily provided towards the 80 hours that is required under the ordinance, as long as the paid leave that has been provided is comparable to what's specified in the ordinance and i wanted to acknowledge the different folks we've worked on in this important legislation. starting with deputy city attorney matt pearson and matt goldberg as well as our early co-sponsor, supervisor haney, jobs of justice san francisco, the san francisco labor council, sieu, united service workers west and legal aid network and san francisco chamber of commerce.

again, i have a series of motions that i'd like to make that will allow us to move the nonsubstantive amendments to ward as soon as possible and then also come deal with the would be substantive amendment regarding allowing health care providers to ask that public health emergency leave, when they're quarantined or sick. so, the first motion is -- i'd like to move that to adopt the amendment before us, except for references to 5b included therein. >> can you please take a roll call vote on that motion? >> on the motion to amend? supervisor stefani. >> aye.

>> stefani, aye. supervisor mar? >> aye. >> mar, aye. >> chair ronen. >> aye. >> motion passs to amend the ordinance. >> and i move to duplicate the file as amended. >> i need to send the original file as amended as a committee report to the april 7 meeting of the board. >> roll call? >> on the motion to refer to the board of committee report? supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> stefani, aye.

supervisor mar. chair ronen. >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> and next, i would like to move to amend the duplicated file with the remaining amendments that references to 5c. >> we need a role call for that. >> yes. that motion to amend. supervisor stefani. [roll call] the motion to amend has passed. >> and then finally i move to continue the duplicated file as further amended to the monday, april 13 meeting of the rules committee. >> roll call. >> on that motion, supervisor

stefani. >> aye. [roll call] >> those are the five motions you wanted to make, correct? >> correct. >> thank you so much. so mr. cook, are there any other items on today's agenda? >> before i state, i'd like to summarize that the original motion has been amended and refered to the board as a committee report. the duplicated file has been continued to the april 13 meeting and that completes the agenda for today. >> thank you so much. then the meeting is adjourned. thank you, guys. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> take care.

>> good morning, the meeting will come to order. this is the april 15th, 2020, regular budget and finance committee meeting. at this time i will also be calling to reschedule the budget propriations committee. and i am sandra lee fewer and i'm joined by supervisor walton and supervisor mandelman and by supervisor ronen and president yee is with us today. our clerk is miss linda wong. i would like to thank sfgov-tv for this meeting.