[please stand by] [please stand by]

>> good afternoon, welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, october 19th, 2020. i am the chair of the committee supervisor peskin joined by committee member dean preston

and soon-to-be joined by vice-chair supervisor safai. our court is miss erika major. do you have any announcements, ms. major? >> due to the covid-19 health emergency, and to protect board members the legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to state and federal orders. committee members will attend the meeting through the conference and participate in the meeting to the same ex at the present time as if there's physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. both channel 26 and sfgot.org are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak during public comment period and call the number on the screen that's (415)655-0001, again that number is

(415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146 784 273. press pound and pound again after you enter the meeting i.d. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions and you will be unmuted, and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up press star three to be added to to the speaker line. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television and you may submit public comment. e-mail myself, the land use and transportation clerk at eric erica.major. and if you submit public comment' a e-mail it will be forded to the supervisors and made part of the official file. you may also submit written comments via u.s. postal service to city hall and room 244 san

francisco, california, 94102. finally, items acted upon today are expect to appear on the board of supervisors agenda october 27th, unless otherwise stated. do you have any additional comments? >> no. >> could you please call the first item. >> item number one is an ordinance accepting certain public infrastructure improvements for purposes of city maintenance and liability including water pump stations and the emission base south redevelopment plan. if you would like to make public comment on this call (415)655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 146 784 2743.

when you express star three, the system will prompt you that you raised your hands and when you get to public comment you will hear that you have been unmuted and you may make your comments. >> thank you, i had a number of questions and i want to thank nad were from the success or agency now called ocii for looking into the questions that i had which she can respond to publicly but the answers to those questions and the liability to the city at mission bay have been satisfactory answered for me and with that, e take the floor. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

>> we can barely hear you. >> i'm sorry, i do have my -- now you are sounding ok. >> ok, i'm sounding ok. sorry about that thank you for hearing this item again. i appreciate the questions that you have. i have my team here with me who will present from public works. mike who can respond to questions specific to the project and we also have a representative from puc as you asked. i want to start with these infrastructures have been completed and have been in use for two to 10 years. when infrastructure is complete, the city is required to accept them but in the process, what is taken us a little longer and

we've been working with your office and other city departments to get that working. the engineering and design of the infrastructure was done in conformance with city specific cases and it was approved and permitted by the city. the infrastructure was monitored by public works and the puc has shown us the infrastructure was built to standards. as such, we've been because of the soil sediment at mission bay, we've worked diligently with our city partners to set aside some funds to and they can speak us us as well it was available and estimated at cost and the idea is it would be at cost at whatever time the work would be to get done. the reason we're asking for an acceptance to allow for the streets to remain open so that we can continue to partner with

the developer to finish the infrastructure. i'll turn it over to john thomas. >> speak to us the subsidence issues if you will and any impacts that might have both on the surface and subsurface infrastructure. good afternoon. >> good afternoon, chair peskin and members of the committee john thomas with public works. i'm here to speak to you about the commission bay acceptance. if it's possible, there's a powerpoint that could be shared. >> sure. >> go ahead, please. >> should i do that from here or is that something that. >> we can share your screen. >> e give me one second.

>> now that they changed and updated teams, i find it harder to find things. >> your share should be on the upper returned. right-hand. >> i do have that but i'm not seeing my item here for some reason. >> it's not coming up for me. >> madam clerk, do you have the slide? >> yes. if you can cue that up for us,

please. >> there we go. all right. thank you. so, second slide, please. so you see our infrastructure request for acceptance and that includes streets and sidewalks. street slights, the sewer system, stormwater pump stations, the water system, communication and traffic signals. throughout mission bay and on the blocks described here. next slide, please. as chair peskin alluded there

are geotechnical experience and the history of studies on mission bay and our geotechnical team was tread well and roll owe and they studied the underlying slow conditions and determined there was extensive presence of bay mud and settlement was as a result. the team evaluated surcharging of the mission bay area. given the extent, both depth and breadth, the decision to surcharge would have impacted many existing streets for a year or more in the expected impacts to the area would have been too bright to bear at the time. there are also various concerns that were raised, the mom connection tee in that would be

under those exiting city streets by the surcharging and and the site civil was to provide a hand other interface at the sidewalk and building to maintain access for the most part, the intent was to have the main entrances to those buildings setback to

allow for setment that would come. we have seen the settlement as predicted and we have not experienced any breaks in. >> fourth and king was one of the first of the buildings that was constructed in the area and while there are problems there, they can be addressed and will be by the fronting property owner. subsequent developers have made the appropriate adjustments. >> all of that has been uniform in blocks and there's been no differential settlement? >> that's correct. it has been performing as expected and and settling as one so things are looking pretty good.

they have been reviewing all of the installations and it's a rigorous process over the years. in consultation with other city agencies, public works issued determination of completion and the infrastructure was ready for its intended use and as the director mentioned, the street have been operating under licenses with the development partner to this point. once accepted, then the departments will operate and maintain these facilities and they're consist apartment with the city's general plan and the eight priority policy of the planning point section 101.1. next slide, please. >> this is construction in the

mission bay area and. >> the proposed legislation will accept offered of dedication with streets and roadways for their designated and inpended purpose accepting liability through q&a 17 maps the board is establishing sidewalk width and street grades and dedicating the importance for public use. some of the activities that have had begun to occur in the area as the development have been completing and as you can see this is bringing much needed using including dock parks and

there is renaming of streets the proposal includes that the change of el doradao and i believe members of the border are well aware of karin woods. she was very active in this area and passed away recently and in that section to karin woods way. also, exiting channel street is proposed to rename miss creek in channel street here.

that concludes my presentation this afternoon. we also have kahal hennessey from project works from ociaa and available for any questions. >> colleagues, i have had extented officers with ocii and other parties including the puc so if you have questions ask them now. >> ceiling none. thank you mr. thomas is there any public comment on this item number one? >> thank you, mr. chair. james, can you let us know if there are any callers are ready. >> no callers are in queue at this time. >> ok. seeing no public commenters, public comment is closed. and colleagues, if there's no objection, i would like to make

a motion to send this idea with recommendation as a committee report and on that motion, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call[ roll call vote ] >> the administrative code to up plain con ton firm play management and the national flood insurance criteria and to remove provisions and the findings. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, this call the number on the screen. that is (415)655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 146.

>> from the city administrator's office we have mr. bill barnes. the floor is yours. >> chair peskin, thank you for we secretary committee adopt today and last time you heard this there were concerns around definitions of regulatory floodway as well as historic resources being more accurately defined so it's consistent with state and local preservation laws. fema sent us the ma'am on september 23rd so our priorities are required to adopt at the local level working with the new federal requirements and

of places for state programs and or historic listed on a local inventory and historic placed including the certified by a program or the secretary of interior and we would that you earlier point the out a number of staff and different availables if are they'll able and i know the agenda is long so with that i'll secretary committee to adopt the amendments and recommend the items. >> are there any questions or comments from members? i want to thank you for listening to our comments or my comments earlier and i have reviewed those amendments which

colleagues are set fourth on pages seven, eight, and nine of the subject legislation and have been adequately described by mr. i don't believe they were substantive in nature but we defer to attorney pearson for her advice. >> anne pearson, you are correct, chair peskin, they're not substantive. >> why don't we go to public comment and then i'll make a motion to accept the amendment and let's hear from the public. are there any members of the public who would like to speak to item number 2. >> thank you mr. chair. we have james checking o to see if there are any callers in cue and press star 3. would you let us know if you have any callers on the line.

>> public comment is closed and i would like to make a motion to adopt on the bottom of page 24 and 25 page 8 lines 5 through seven and the deletion at line 20 and the deleg as describe lie nine. on that motion, madam clerk, a roll call please. [ roll call vote ] you have three ayes. >> i would like to send the item with recommendations to the full

board and on that motion roll call please. [ roll call vote ] >> next item, please. >> administrative to require sellers of the multi family residential buildings to provide a new right of first order and first refusal for organizations if a multi family residential building is not under contract or remains unfold after one year and after each year thereafter, members of the public who wish to provide public item call the number streaming on the screen. and punch in the meeting i.d. and press pound and pound again after you your code. mr. chair. >> thank you, supervisor fewer,

the floor is yours. >> yes, thank you chair peskin and good afternoon supervisors safai and supervisor preston. today i'm happy to move forward on our legislation to enhance the opportunities to purchase act which went into effect over a year now. they have helped qualifying non profits purchase apartment buildings at risk of losing their affordability and preserve them as affordable housing. this is helped prevent the displacement of some of our most vulnerable tenants in san francisco by removing their homes from the real estate market and i thrilled to see the state legislate or is not working with some of our community partners on a state wide version thanks to the success in san francisco. i would like to thank our community partners who make it possible and all my colleagues for co response organize this ground breaking legislation last year and they are based on the experience and input of our affordable housing providers on

the ground over the past year and these amendment also do the follow things. make it easier for qualified non profits to decide whether to make an offer on a building by requiring this sellers to provide them with more complete disclosures. provide more transparency and engagement by requiring sellers to provide them with an information see about these will

further enhance cope a and make sure everything is cope asset tick. at the request of the office of economic and workforce development i i have one amendment i will make. they will include a land dedication to the city for new affordable housing construction and this amendment would clarify that these land dedications are not subject to copea, you should have received a copy of the legislation with mendment highlighted on page 3. i've been informed by a city attorney this amendment will trigger a continuance so i hope to have your support on this amendment today and on the full ordinance next week. in addition to thanking all our community partners, i would also like to thank supervisors walton, yee, mandelblite mandel.

>> are there comments from committee members? let's go to public comment. is there any public comment on this item? >> mandelblit. >> good afternoon, supervisors, this is peter cohen with the council of community housing organizations. just wanted to thank supervisor fewer for moving this legislation forward. you know, the community opportunity to purchase act kopa was just passed and implemented about a year ago when it went into effect and these refinements and updates are going to be so we are continuing

if you will the tinker with the tool and these are good a investments and i also want to emphasize how impactful and important and valuable it has been and it's been fantastic over the past several years and copa adds more impact and more opportunities and i think we're all going to be very proud to see how effective this is been and how san francisco is a leader. thank you to all the board and for supervisor fewer for getting this legislation introduced. >> you n. speaker, please. >> linda chapman. this seems like a good direction to go into actually preserve the affordable housing that we have. and farber to try to have people if you are going to try to create common interests

development and it's farber to have people who have relatively similar incomes in a particular project rather than trying to sandwich people with relatively relow resources into these expenses and market rate condos and hope when they're each away doze except their amount of their mortgage and they help with our property tax and so on to manage and i want to say i don't know if you have haven't had this kind of experience and that you have no protection. there's state law but you have to hire lawyers to enforce it and even in buildings which the city have at the same time, my

board was driving us out and you know, also, if the trust that's not land trust does not understand that when they buy these buildings, there's tremendous amount of work that's going to have to be done, not necessarily advisable but it wasn't in mind which was beautifully maintained building as far as you could see and millions of dollars worth and it is on people to pay with their own special assessments and so there are things that need to be considered because people will lose their investment and their homes and i was able to pay the 77,000. but i still lost my home because of the horrible abuses of the way that the place was. >> next speaker, please.

>> caller: good afternoon, this is anastasia. thank you supervisor fewer and to supervisor walton, yee, mandelman and co-sponsors of the amendment. this will level the playing field between speculators and communities non-profit organizations and i fully support these amendments. thank you. >> thank you. are there any members of the public that would like to testify on this item? there is one more and i unmuted

them. >> next speaker, please. >> caller: the council committee has an organization in support of this measure. thank you supervisor fewer for being that multi-year process to create the first kopa and bringing up-to-date with lessons learned and working through it and this could not be more timely given what we're hearing on the impacts of covid-19 recession and the amount of money being accumulated by speculators to begin to buy up buildings as they did in 2008 as the previous recession so thank you for this work and our presentation is in support of these amendments.

>> thank you. are there any final speakers on this item? >> good afternoon, my name is bruce wolf san francisco community land trust. we support this amendment. we urge you to vote out of committee and i want to say as a member of the california cot network we really appreciate the work that supervisor fewer has done and the board of supervisors and their unanimous support to move this forward for the work that we're doing to bring this concept and approach state wide. >> thank you mr. wolf.

>> any other public comments on this item? >> that is the last member in queue. >> i would like to offer the amendment described by supervisor fewer at page 3 at line 17-21 a new subsection 7 as well as the cross reference in the long time at lines 11 and 12 on page 1. on that motion, madam clerk, a roll call, please. [ roll call vote ] >> i should hit that meeting chatbox. supervisor preston, my apologies. >> no problem. i was just going to wait until after the amendment. i just wanted to thank exercise fewer and all the affordable housing advocates who has been worked so hard on the copa program more broadly and now

incorporating the lesson from its first year into the legislation. i would love to be add as a co-sponsor and to thank you for your leadership on this. >> thank you. >> all right. dually noted and on the amendment a roll call, please. [ roll call vote ] >> you have three ayes. >> i'd like to make a motion to send the item as amended with recommendation to the full board of supervisors for a hearing next week. on that motion, a roll call please. >> wait, supervisor chair, it's going to be continued. >> excuse me. thank you vice-chair safai. i would like to make a motion to continue the item as amended to our meeting next monday.

>> supervisor preston. >> supervisor safai. next item, please. >> number four is a resolution is initiating a landmark designation under item 10 of the planning code for 649 there 651 and the members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call the number streaming on the screen. and the meeting i.d. if you have not done so already press star 3 to lineup to speak and the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. mr. chair. >> thank you, madam clerk.

i want to thank supervisor mandelman for bringing this landmark designation or initiation of the landmark designation to this committee. i would like to be added as co-sponsor and say that i have the pleasure of going to 649 duncan street when phyllis and del were with us and hung out in their living room with them and if there's a deserving landmark this is, with that i will turn it over to supervisor pandemic. >> among all the of the things that have happened in 2020, one of them was the loss of phyllis lion back in april. she was an icon of the lgbtq rights movement. she and her long time partner del martin, wer and they were te

first same-sex couple legally we had in san francisco in 2004. last m. the home where they lived together for more than 50 years and where phyllis lived to the end of her life sold for $2.5 million. the house is a 750 square foot cottage on a double lot about 5700 square feet that sun developed. their house was the site of group meetings and community gatherings and private parties where lesbians could dance and be themselves and where they hosted countless other activist and historical figures over more than a half century as organize and he is community leaders. aside from the history, the property also has, as you may have observed, chair peskin, a stunning view of the city. it's a an area that routinely sees mansions being sold and

when i visit requested hered. it was the very last parcel of land and truly the last of its kind in the upside potential and in my view, this is to san francisco and the lgbtq rights movement across the world and it should be recognized and preserved that's why i'm bringing this item forward today and i want to thank shane watson and the historical society for quickly rallying the community around this one and historian who co proteasome the historic statement in 2016 and shane called the community with preservation as friends and former care delivers and that lead to the launch of the martin

house group by the historical society as well as the resolution before you today and we wish and the board has a aren't to for any property and this triggers review by the planning department and a recommendation and to include the property as a landmark in the code so this is the beginning of a process and a critical step to make sure they weigh in on what happens when the site in the future.

and i request your recommendation. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. why don't we open this up for public comment and are there any members of the public for this item. >> thank you mr. chair. looks like we have two listeners in queue. can you queue in the first caller for us, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors, this is woody from san francisco heritage. i'm calling to express the strong support for the initiation of this landmark designation and 59 the long time home of phyllis and del as a meaning place of the daughters of the leaders 649 duncan is a locus of civil rights history and significant not only locally but internationally and i believe the national historic

preservation has sent a letter of support and recognizing sites and important to lgbtq history are few and specifically less bow an focus sites are even rarer. they support the initiation and request this community recommend it to the full board of supervisors for consideration. thank you and thank you supervisor mandelman for your leadership on this. >> thank you and we are in deed in receipt of a letter of support from the national trust for historic preservation for the initiation of the landmark designation for 649 duncan street, next speaker, please. >> this is anastasia and district 8 residents and i thank my supervisor for bringing fourth this preservation are

there any other speakers. >> seeing no speakers. public comment is closed. and any final words supervisor mandelman? if there are no comments from my colleagues, pursuant to section 01004.1 and which is the missionation and i woulassociatt the full board of supervisors on that motion madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> on the motion as stated,

supervisor preston. >> i am pleased to add me as a co-sponsor. >> supervisor, safai. >> please add me as a co-spons co-sponsor. aye. >> an ordinance with the building code to require new construction to utilize only electric and many of the environment code to provide public hearings on implementation of all of and findings and member of the public who wish to provide public comment should call the number on the screen. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so press

star and 3 to lineup to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand, wait until we get to public comment and the system will indicate that you have have been unmuted and you may begin to your comments. mr. chair. >> i want to thank supervisor mandelman and his staff and the outreach they've done since they heard it on october 5th and i want to thank the various community skate holders and i think everywhere that supervisor mandelman and i have been with regard to this legislation, everybody says the same thing, which is, this is a piece of legislation whose time has come and there are a few details that

need working out and i want to say i think that they are all worked out or all just about worked out a few of them need to be socialized a little bit but it's just about ready for prime time and i want to thank supervisor mandelman and turn it over to the chief sponsor. >> thank you, chair peskin. thank you committee members for your feedback and on going willingness to engage around this legislation. as you will recall, this is to require all electric new construction for buildings that file for permits starting january 1st of 2021 with limited exceptions. and i look forward to continuing this conversation today and i do have a few amendments that should be in your inbox from earlier today. and i want to address some of the issues that have come up in the next that i've spoken to

some of you about. with respect to feasibility, as we've discussed, all electric buildings are feasible and including the and it's a nine-storey project with 127 units and now, i've also heard concerns abouts.

>> if there isn't electric capacity available for a particular site. including third party review and any exception granted or denied by staff will be appeal able to the board of examers, established in the building code and they will provide annual reporting for the department of the environment on the exceptions process as well. colleagues on friday you received additional information in response to these and a few other issues related to feasibility. we heard and discussed some at the last hearing on this and so today i plan to offer two amendments that would incorporate some of the language from the dbi bulletin into the ordinance to clarify how some of these it would not be sufficient

grounds to determine an all-electric system is infeasible for the purpose of granting exceptions. and to reference a set of electric ready decide guidelines to be maintained by dbi, which you are currently included adds an attachment to the administrative, these are helpful clarifications and if we have a little more specificity around the exceptions process. i also want to address the concerns around restaurants that i believe chair peskin referenced. it bears repeating that this ordinance does not effect any existing buildings including renovations in remodel and it pro voids a year of transition time for new building that's will include a restaurant space. they will file for permits for a building that uses gas for commercial cooking purposes and only after january of -- restaurant projects. they would file permits for a

building that uses gas for commercial cooking purposes only and until january 2022. since our last hearing, my office is worked with the department of the environment to arrange a workshop and inlined interpretation and last week to afford local restaurants and an opportunity to be here from experts in cooking electric indication. ination d. they have feedback from the restaurant community and some of you would and i like to offer an ongoing waiver process after 2022 for restaurants that will require gas facilities for their unique style. they would be appealable for the decision on a waiver earlier before the permit has been issued. colleagues, this would allow for the continued use of gas in my buildingnewbuildings in the futs

necessary in a limited way. the waiver will be limited to the commercial cooking building of the area for cook uses only and the space would have to be constructed as electric running. i would like to have an amendment which we'll talk a little bit about regarding applications for the ordinance and with existing development agreement contracts and it includes standard language regarding contracts and strictly to clarify to the and again, let me reiterate that the ordinance will not effect existing buildings or projects that file

before the end of the year and since that represents about one-third of the current development pipeline or about 28,000 housing union it's and 10 million square feet of commercial development, it's many years of project they're moving forward and will be under construction for years to come as all electric technology continues to become more widely accepted. i believe mr. mazola raises important questions, we've had an opportunity to meet with him and discuss those concerns and i'm committed to working together to supporting good junior jobs in san francisco and it's a project i've committed to undertaking and will be continuing those conversations in the next few weeks. with that, staff are here from the department of the environment and d bye for any questions and given the broad

community interest in the topic there may be interest to continue it item for land use and i think makes sense and i hope hope we can get to a comfort level with it can be sent to the full board with positive recommendations in a week. with that, i'm done. >> like i said at the outset we really appreciate the work that you've done to navigate this very difficult and ground breaking piece of legislation in one of the densist areas of the western seaboard of the united states. i for one, think that you are there or as we discussed there's been questions with regard to

the waiver process and i think many of which would likely be promulgated by internal department regulation but we could give some of the contours particularly around due process and appeal procedures so we should probably have those conversations in the intervening week and with that if there are no questions or comments, from members, let's open this up to public comment. >> looks like we have six callers in queue. james, if you can please queue in the first caller for public comment. >> caller: i urge you to send the strongest possible version of the gas band ordinance to the full board of supervisors. a yeah and a half ago, the board of supervisors declared a climate emergency existence in

san francisco and directed the city to take positive action to address it. the ordinance buff, which mandates that new buildings in the electric is a good first step but you recommend you consider the changes laid out by the san francisco climate emergency coalition ex and other locals groups. i recommend that the board and the city move quickly to develop and task the remaining climate related ordinance and the record-breaking fires this season are a stark reminder of how serious climate change is. in two recent executive orders, governor new some accelerated the state's response to climate change and san francisco needs to adopt that same sense of urgency. thank you.

>> for committing a lrt last week recognizing the job impacts on plumbers and echo our call tone sure a just transition path for those construction workers that is identified and adopts that will address to job losses. the electric work is gets a small fraction of the work hours lost by eliminating plumbing and building and that work is performed by a craft and not create substitute employment at communities for the skilled plumbers who's jobs will be lost by this ordinance. the last thing san francisco needs to to eliminate more blue collar jobs. there's a last on the paper accounted in order to provide a.

>> it should be tied to additional requirements to extend intallation of gray one and recycled water systems in new construction. it would provide the workers by this ordinance and the work held benefit of san francisc san fra. we encourage staff to expand recycled water, gray water and rain water requirements in new construction to mandate that staff ordinance and within the next six months and to delay the date of electrification requirements until 30 days of the ordinances. it's important for us that this be connected because it does no good to people who jobs and we don't replace them until two or

three years down the line and we need to be connected with electric indication and to create better buildings to san francisco and help save. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hello, thank you to the supervisors to bring this legislation forward and i think it's a and bringing forward further legislation towards retro fitting existing buildings. i also support a just and transition for union workers and gray water legislation at the speakers was just talking about. >> thank you, next speaker,

please. >> i'm a san francisco resident. i want to urge the as soon as possible on this crucial measure is this is a big crisis and we need to get moving swiftly so we can do it with as much planning as we can get in there to handle the many concerns of people of race. thank you. >> does that conclude your

comment, ma'am? next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon. bruce willis speaking for myself. thank you supervisor mandelman and supervisors for working on this. this is fantastic. i urge and echo all the previous speakers and add that this is -- we'll have a positive effect on all our work for well over a decade now on clean power sf and help move us to be free of fossil fuel oils and others. thank you. >> i'm speaking as part of the coalition and a resident of district 8 and this is now the third time we're hearing this

item. at the land use commission and i count the ninth meeting over all and this ordinance has been well over a year in the making and it included conversations and negotiations that not only supervisor mandelman with constituents and various departments and also the department of environment. all i have to say is this ordinance is ready. we're unhappy it sounds like there's going to be a permanent restaurant waiver and it's not required to be in the public of interest and these implementations to be left in the hands of dbi with its history of corruption and all that being said, this ordinance is a world-changing step towards fighting climate change. sf would be the largest city to build new carbonization and this step is taken now, like today, will effect the proceedings of the state level for the 22 building code in turn, that will effect other states nation wide and perhaps the world. any further delays on this

ordinance. and the climate emergency resolution to take immediate action to address the climate crisis. add up months and we have a year this is the easy part and we're running out of time. this is ready and it's high time for san francisco to leave. please pass this today with a committee report so we can be heard by the full board as soon as possible. thank you. >> as a matter of timing it makes no difference. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm also a member of the san francisco climate emergency coalition and a member of district 9. i would like you with the smoke coming in from the fires, we're lucky right now and we won't be lucky later.

this is just going to get worse. we must start to take action on what was resolved in the san francisco climate emergency declaration in the city called for immediate and accelerated action to address the climate crisis and resolve to ensure adjust transition for all people. we cannot afford these goals as daniel said. weeks plus weeks but weeks and go on not acting. it is not that we can chose which climate solutions we want. we need all of the climate solutions and building electric indication ielectrification is t will allow phase out some fuels. if we don't do this we won't get here. as a human being on this planet, i'm terrified and i'm terrified from my one-year-old mcneese

and and i urge you to what we need seriously and move forward with what is needed to give the pipe gooders and the other people in san francisco who work on fossil fuel a just transition and we need action now. thank you very much. please, do the right thing. >> thank you, next speaker, please.

>> including just within this committee. i think from a climate perspective or a public-health and safety perspective, either way our community is in crisis and we need to act. thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is paul wormer and i'd like to start by endorsing previous comments and in particular daniel' comments about the urgency and the comments in general this is really a serious issue and i have a actually a grand nephew and i do not have -- i'm worried about his future. i do want to say that i'm happy to hear there's a discussion on

the appeals process because as it stands now, i have the right to appeal the event and i have no idea it happened and i have a right to do it within 10 or 15 days where i'm appealing it but i have no way of knowing it's happening so that is a right of appeal on paper that is not in reality and i do hope you will address that. i want to raise a question specifically on the legislation and page four lines 19 and 20 it talks about the site permit or first permit for the building and project and it backs about the permit for a project. project is not as near as i can tell defined and it's used widely and it's for example something as large and a project and in which case you may be granted much greater ex

exemptions than you understand and it should be clarified. and i'd like ask or comment with respect to the just transition and the issues with recycled water. the city did have a purple and it's very restricted by where they can have recycled water. as we deal with the climate issue, water will be more difficult to manage and we use that purple pipe expansion that is part of the justification and. >> thank you, mr. wormer. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors, this is alex lance burg i'm a research and advocacy for the san francisco construction industry. i wanted to commend you on

moving this forward and the echo the comments we've heard from others regarding just transition for workers. there's a couple things i wanted to underscore and bring up and really repeat of the (inaudible) today. one is really the importance of looking at the (inaudible). we have expanded in the threshold and and through the queue to point that and and

(inaudible). our work has to be done by (inaudible) contracted but it's something that we're going to get down the line ultimately is the question of how wore dealing with this. i know it's not part part of this legislation and the department of environment and mr. mandelman's office and (inaudible). and finally we have some extraordinary modified and is

making sure that building on th- >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> caller: this is joannie, resident of the district 10 and totally agreeing with the daniel and helena and the comment and as an urban farmer who has backyard organic vegetable patch and pet chickens were mental and physical health as a grandma who feels the responsibility to leave i implor implore you to ms forward. i've been pushing for and following the progress of climate friendly policies since before the board passed its declaration of climate emergency of february of last year and under supervisor mandelman's leadership, thank you for that but what does emergency mean to you? to mean it means action. as stated in the declaration.

2020 has presented us with nonstop overlapping emergencies, all of them requiring immediate accelerated action and all of them requiring that ensuring equity for all is always part of both division and subsequent reality. i know the city can be slow in enacting any change. this is especially been the case with this ordinance, please, speed this process along today and recommend the full board mandate all electric new buildings and please do include amendments to eliminate the infeasibility excuse for developers and thank you so much.

i'm not going to repeat the comments i'm just going to say we're calling into say that we support this ordinance and we can't afford anymore delays and we strongly encourage the adoption and there are a lot more projects that we need to work on like storage and goods that can help us further combat the wildfires and ways that we're experiencing and considering to delay this ordinance delays and takes away from the time that we have

advocates have to work on other important conservation issues so thank you for the opportunity to comment. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my amy and i'm a constituent in mandelman's district. i'll calling in support the excellent comments made by members of the sf climate emergency coalitio coalition. i strongly support the passage e of this bill with the urgency that it deserves. as a student, i strongly support listening to the science that says that we must act quickly in the face of the information we have about climate change and also in the information that we know about the health impacts of natural gas. an article shows the damaging

often impacts of gas and the issue is getting national attention and sf has a chance to be a leader in this field and i think we should take that opportunity. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> can you hear me now? >> caller: good afternoon, it's david pillpel. just wanted to speak in support of the proposed ordinance. i don't have anything to add that other speakers haven't already covered in a fine, fine way and i just wanted to thank supervisor mandelman and everyone else who has worked considerably on this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. > >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is ter a scheer and i'm

a medical student at ucsf and resident at district 6. i'm speaking on behalf of san francisco based efficient for social responsibility as well as climate health now a state wide network of health professionals mobilizing to protect our patients by addressing the climate crisis. our organizations strongly support passing this ordinance and we know the use of natural gas is i am pot able with a face and climate future for our communities as we have out dor threats due to worsening wildfires events and asthma and

chronic lung and heart disease so we have an opportunity in pass north ordinance to protect people's health. thank you very much on this issue. >> thank you, next speaker, please. the outreach to get this resolution to where this ordinance to where it is right now and to this committee i thank you all.

if they would like those they are set fourth pages number three relative to impact to children on page four and with to regards around a cooking and restaurants and that you indicated and waivers for restaurants potentially in the future and i think that sums them up is that correct, supervisor mandelman?

>> >> just one question and i don't know if this is for you or for deputy city attorney but i just am trying to understand on the non impairment of contracts provision, i understand with respect to the restaurant that if the electric-only requirements don't apply they would still be electric ready and i am curious how that applies in the d.a. situation and if for whatever reason after the city attorney consult it is deemed that the electric-only requirements this ordinance don't apply to a particular project that already has the d.a. would it still be required to be electric ready or would that be unclear? >> supervisor mandelman, would

you like to respond or defer to council? >> i will try and then i will defer to council. i think it's important that this section 5 language be sort of understood for what it is which is in some ways i think a restatement of it is san francisco's acknowledgment or it's the board's acknowledgment that impairment of contract is a thing and there's legal principles around that and we recognize that and we are not trying to break the law or somehow assert west ability to i remember pair contracts. whether the electric ready provisions of this ordinance or any other provisions of this ordinance applied to particular projects or buildings being done under a d.a., it would have to be determined case by case and

the city attorney and people would come in foray ply for building permits. it's my understanding of how this would work but i will defer to the city attorney. >> anne pearson. supervisor pandemic, you mandel. it's standard just to clarify that the terms of a contract will be respected and upheld and that clause is separate apart and. >> i just want to echo the comments that supervisor peskin made. i really am and want to

appreciate all the hard work you put in this supervisor mandelman and it's that we're achieving our environmental goals. and, so, i'm really, really excited about this legislation and the more people i talk to.

>> talked a little bit about the department of environment today about the economic and workforce development along with public works and the thing that you my experience has been and this might seem little, you did reference it in the smaller project. my question is just for point of on the record. my question is about the feasibility about the technology and about the ability for a water heating system and larger buildings and i have those questions answered really well today and from a whole coalition of architects and those in the industry and it was very clear and the technology does exist and it can matter providing the space for these devices and it might be expensive up front but the cost savings are played out overtime in terms of the over all savings as opposed to the diffuses of fuel.

there were -- when you get to the smaller building and there's a cul cut off, where you are tag about smaller buildings that may or may not require a transformer and i think you referenced that in your remarks, if you are talking about infill development and talking about something around 10 units or less, then you do get n into a space conversation. they've attempted to public works and planning have tried to work this out, but i would hate to, since we've done so much work, i would hate to just leave it up to the department to fight out down the road whether or not, if you can put a transformer under the sidewalk and that is the choice that laws it to go to all electric. i think you did a little bit of that would be to clarify that in the legislation.

whether or not and add a considerable amount of time in delay to the project so thi pro. if there's something for you to consider in the week. i don't think it would be a substantive amendment but a clarifying amendment. the second thing and i want to put this out there and i know we talked about it and it is ad nauseam and for the folks listening, why want them to say in anyway that this is undermining the legislation or taking away from it. restaurants in many ways are the backbone of our city and when you are building new construction, often times you don't know your tenants. you don't know if you are going to have a restaurant as the

tenant but if the building owner is smart and says it might be an option, they're going to put in ventilation, they're going to put in a grease trap and have the infrastructure there. so ask for a favo waiver after e fact to come back in, it's technically infeasible because no longer does the building allow for a ventilation system on the exterior of the building they want it on the roof and that can be a problem so you would takeaway an option for the ability to have a restaurant as a tenant and i don't really understand the language and maybe you can explain this to me, what sufficient evidence means and necessary for the specific commercial food service establishment. because, can clarify that. the last thing, i'm sorry i'm

giving you all three, the last thing was, on the development agreement, i understand if you look at all the different development agreements and in total, you are talking about 46,000 units, if you add them up, treasure island and all those that could be impacted, what i have heard is that it would be -- not just this non impairment language but there would be a clarification to say that if a project has gone through a initial, physical application process, that would be talking approved phase application and that you would be reducing it down to about 4,600 units that would be impacted and i think the reason that's important when i think about treasure island i think of five to seven years worth of planning that went into the over all transmission line, the infrastructure, the compass tee

loads, and i'm not 100% even sure for that particular project, if the capacity exists or could exist or could require a significant amount of additional time and so it seems to me it would make more sense to clarify a little bit further the language there. if a project has gone through its approved phase application in terms of development agreement, we would be narrowing it down to 10% of the development agreement projects and i think it would clarify rather than leave open the doors for future contention, legal contention that could slow these projects up further if they were

believing they were required to do electric on these first phases and i'm talking about treasure island, phase 1, and shipyard phase 1 and some of the public housing sunny dale and the hope sf projects. park merced was supervisor peskin was involved in on his first run on the board and so these were projects that are fears and nears in the making and i know i highlighted the most contentious remaining ite items, supervisor mandelman. first one is the transformers and the public right away

underground and i heard from the chinese chamber and the san francisco chamber on that and it when you build you don't always know your tenants and that's a little bit difficult and the last one is the development agreements that have been negotiated overtime and we're yoyouwe'retalking about the devt and all the rest would be covered. all the remaining 4,000 plus units all the the additional phases would be 100% electric on i think that seems to be. >> thank you, i'm happy on

sidewalks and i'm happy tone gage with you and your officer over the coming weeks on this question of or going down to the sidewalk. we had a go with trying to negotiate some of those conversations and. >> we can talk about it.

>> i have quit quite a bit. it's more of a nature of do we want to allow something into the public right away even if it's underground and the question then becomes and they might be arguing for finance and labor. >> yeah. if you were -- >> it's not a financial waiver but yeah. >> it's not technical feasibility, right. >> yeah. >> if you are talking about a small project that if you were to put this inside, potentially you need one unit and you lose space because of the size of it and it pertains to technically feasible and something to consider. sometimes it happens to referee when we write legislation and i would air on the side of being aggressive with legislation as it pertains to the environment

and going all electric and i'm 100% for that. i think if it is technically feasible to put it in under that, that would be my preference and allow the building to go all electric rather than having an outlet. >> it's complicated in terms the stuff going on under the sidewalk or what we can impose and the condition and defining what sufficient evidence is going to be a process, a regulatory process as i'm envisioning it. along the lines, you know, we already have this other administrative bulletin for this but there would be rulemaking at

the building inspection commission it would be a public process and everybody would be able to participate and there would be some set of cases and in which -- you could go further than that and allow natural gas hook ups in more or all cases but i do think that that does start undermining the intent of the legislation which is to be moving us towards a future which is at some point between now and 2050 when we don't have natural gas connections or if we do we're not relying on them and so, we don't want throwing in a hook up for a restaurant that may or may not happen on the

groundfloor, i think. i don't think if we're trying to move towards a natural gas free future, and also in terms of the they don't even want a restaurant on their groundfloor and they know but a lot of times they don't and if after the

fact, i guess i was trying to convey what i i've heard from those -- >> to your last point on the development agreements, with regard to the affordable project, and make sense for them. the stating language, as we were discussing and how this would contract language work, the point is they have rights and

what may be contemplated is short circuiting that process and saying we're going to pre determine that some of these projects and won't be covered by this legislation even if the development agreement woozy wise allow them to be. and you know, i don't know if you want -- it's for the committee it's for the full board to think about but i think there are issues around potentially waving the requirements of this legislation many years into the future since these development agreements have terms that are 10, 20, 30, years and even the first phase could be many years in the future. so, you know, if there's going to be some specific set of projects that get sort of

grandfathered not because they're development agreement requires it but because we think they should be. what i heard from them was a very specific group and you probably heard this as well. those d.a. projects that have gone through an approved phase application, so they're very specific. it wouldn't be leaving this dor open and going into the future forever, it's those that are approved for phase application. those are phase 1 and some of them already are going to plan to be electric or a small piece of that but the remainder i don't believe can or believe that they would have the ability to without a significant cost in delays so, it would be good to hear some clarifying because what you said is not what i heard from the department of the

office of economic and workpla workplace. >> i would like to know if we're contemplate organize if the committee would contemplate that and what timeframe we're talking about and is this for the next five years or is this indefinite and do these buildings have to be electric ready? >> yeah. >> so we're requiring everything else to be electric ready so, would we require grandfathered projects to be electric ready. >> and just so we're -- just so the public is clear through the area i want to be clear what we're talking about is folks that are doing significant infrastructure and have already put years and years and years of work into the infrastructure and they're laying roads, they're laying sewers and water and they're doing this work and it's never been done in this area but i'm sorry.

>> if i may, and so not all of the projects are in the same state of development. so, let me give you a for instance. there are issues of contract impairment and those are dealt with in the amendment that has been proposed by the chief sponsors and all of that notwithstanding, there's a vast difference. let's use the shipyard by way of example and parcel a, which was approved a long time ago, all of the subsurface work has been done and the pads have been prepared and the buildings have been building and other parcels, b and c and all the parcel and e and t have radiological damage on them but yes, permits and

it's getting a permit and doing work under that permit. if the permit is obtained and it's years until they're actually moving turn around and laying down pipe or transformers or cables, i think that's time to -- that's what we should look for in the future. what we all want to do is capture as much future development as we can within the boundaries of that which is legal and is not going to put us in a precarious position and i think that's what supervisor mandelman is striving to do here. >> right. and i think that just what i was trying to distinguish and we're talking about 46,000 units and

there's a subset and if the chair wouldn't mind,. >> good afternoon, thank you for having me. >> it's in line with the sponsors not leaving an open-ended and years and years down the road so can you explain a little bit about what your

office's position as it relates to these development agreements and for the party agreement and when we're talking about approved phase application it would be about 10% of that of 4,600 units? >> that's right. thank you, supervisor safai. we have been in discussions with the committee members and the sponsor supervisor mandelman to see if we can address the kind larger multi-phased development agreement projects within this ordinance and our main goal is to create some clarity and consistency of interpretation for this small known universe of units within da projects. what is not addressed is

development agreement projects that need a host of additional city approvals that deal with their streets and utility work. so, we have some language to clarify that d.a. project that have approved phase applications would also be included in this idea of grandfathering. so it would be projects that have approved phase applications by the end of this year and this represents projects that have significant work and many years that have gone into planning for their infrastructure, planning for the new streets and the utilities. even if within those phases, the specific building permits haven't yet been issued. as you said, supervisor safai, the it encompass and about 4,600

units and our goal here is to simply create clarity so that city staff, project sponsors going into and who are in the midst of reviewing and instal installing and needing specific negotiated opinions on each one. what is also does is it guarantees or really helps us clarify that the remaining 90% of those units in the development agreement pipeline, will go all electric. and so that is really the goal it create some clarity and consistency and really to further prevent delays to the projects and the phases that are underway right now which include a quarter of the units of

affordable units which could be delayed if we have to stop and look at each one individually. that's our main goal. >> let's be clear, the city and county of san francisco does not repair contracts. that was true before the proposed amendment and it will be true with or bought the proposed amendment so i'm not exactly sure what we're talking about. >> i heard some anxiety from the office of economic workforce development. that's why i asked the question, mr. chair. >> we're not therapists. >> i get it. >> how about legal anxiety, how about that? >> ok. >> and if i may, mr. chair, i'm just not sure that i'm hearing

legal anxiety. i think there's distinct between what i think mandelman targets and situations where there may be a right under development agreement and we are seeking to not impair that to the extent that your amendments are clarifying that so everyone knows the scope of that, great. to me it's fundamentally different from looking at not what is legally already in the d.a. but trying to exempt a whole class of these subset of these up to 4,600 units that happen to be somewhere in their development process with certain things done, certain things not done and expanding the scope and i will feel comfortable in an

approach like that. >> i have a question, is mr. charles sullivan available? >> he is. >> can i ask him, since. >> yes, ms. pearson. >> yes, he is waved his hand. >> i have a question through the chair. so, i see the non impairment of existing amendment and i appreciate that and what is your interpretation? we heard from the office of

economic development, at least i did today, there could be some claims filed we didn't further clarify around the projects that are in the phase application process. i wanted to get your interpretation. is this amendment going to prohibit any future lawsuits? is this enough of a clarity around those who have already negotiated this. >> anybody can sue anybody any time over anything. mr. sullivan can't answer that question. with the contract impairment language be giving us a good case on facial charge, of course it would. >> can i have the city attorney answer, i'm sorry. i'm not saying why trust your

opinion. i want to hear from the city attorney. >> thank you, supervisors. >> i do think about non impairment of contract language goes a long way if defending any facial challenge to the ordinance and they view it that they would be forced and to perhaps have the city if they did not feel like we were honoring oir contract. this a husband us to be clear to honor our contract and i think what you are hearing from lee and oewd and the developers community at some level is what lee alluded to was this enormous lag time between when they start designing a project and if you are building a new neighborhood, and you are putting in all the infrastructure for that neighborhood, you kind of want to know up front whether or not

you will have enough to serve those buildings so we're asking them to define what the infrastructure for this neighborhood is going to be. yet, having a process that says you are going to pull a permit for your vertical building down the line and there's anxiety about that and whether or not what are we going to design today if we don't know two or three years from now when we're pulling our permit the situation for that baldwin building. that is the complication that you are struggling with it it's not easy. the other thing we've acknowledged in our office, each development agreement is different with slightly different language so oewd has been working with the developers to reach a certainty in compromise and with that they've said, well, the big one and treasure island where the

developer has indicated and if we locked in phase one, they have rights that it may impair their contract but they could not go there if we agreed it did not applies to phase 1. that's where oew is pushing harder here. >>

>> i appreciate that. >> thank you. >> i restaurant issue pales in comparison to 4,600 units and there are going to be any number of restaurant opportunities in every neighborhood in san francisco with grandfathered gas for the foreseeable future unfortunately. and many of the buildings contemplated are small infilled developments that won't even have commercial at the groundfloor so this issue that supervisor mandelman and i and others have been sensitive and

to is around our exiting development agreements that really would see huge amounts of increase in methane emissions. it's my suggestion, colleagues, with supervisor mandelman's acquiesce we adopt the amendments and continue this item one week and supervisor mandelman, if you would like to arrange for this to be sent forward as a committee record no time will have been lost by this one week continuesance and we can socialize the remaining issues and deal with some of the things that came up that were raised by both sides, i believe mr. wormer spoke to the fact that there may be folks who would like to have defined appeal procedures or waivers granted and there may be project

sponsors who would like to have a procedure for waivers denied. so, it's much less complicated than the d.a. issue but we'll cross that bridge and with that, let's take the amendments before us and i'll make that motion, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> on the motion -- [ roll call vote ] >> you have three ayes. >> i'll make a motion to continue the item for one week.

you have three ayes. >> next item, please. >> clerk: item number 6. >> item number 6 is a resolution transportation district board of directors to oppose any effort to issue layoff notices and they announce they would send out worker adjustment retraining certification actses on september 11th, 2020 to 180 employees and call the number on the screen and if you have been done so already, please press star 3. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. mr. chair. >> supervisor preston. >> thank you, chair peskin and

thank you chair peskin for being a co-sponsor for this and supervisors walton, ronen, hey y and mar. at the request of the inland boatsman union we introduce this resolution and support of the 185 workers who run our bus and ferry transit system carrying passengers between marin and sanoma and san francisco counties. they are part of the transit union which is ibu, ought motive machinist local 1414, marine engineer beneficial association and international brother head local 665 and local 856 and they were sent notices on september 11th.

colleagues, our board and in particular members of this committee have affirmed our commitment to honor and protect workers, especially during this pandemic and full and fair recovery is dependent on strong and healthy working class and the layoffs of these 185 workers during a pandemic is really deeply concerning. i think we all know that the transit ridership is down including trips in and out of san francisco and it's dropped significantly revenue has dropped and it apps federal funding despite the lack of clarity when it comes in and we know we'll get on the paths to recovery and we're already slowly reopening and having experience and and buses and now

and a scaled down schedule and it's important we don't lose these workers and i think they deserve our strong support and i want to thank especially ibu president marina who works closely with our office to bring this resolution forward and urge your support for this resolution hoping we'll put the board on record as strongly opposing layoffs at this time and in support of workers who are such an essential part of our regional transit system. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment object thionthis item? >>

>> first speaker, please. >> i want to thank you for your time and consideration and my name is lisa reed and i've been a member of the golden gate transit at the transit operator for the past three years and and especiallies he h it there's a decrease in miss mass i can't explain why our daily essentials are spared. or due to the lack of money. i cannot fathom of the thought

of making the decision to pay for food for my house and medical treatment and one of my family members may require. i and my fellow operators and brothers and sisters are asking all that all revenues are explored in order to save our livelihood. thank you and i appreciate your time. >> thank you, my name is john houlden and i'm a member of atu1575.

i'm a native san francisco born and raised in north beach china town area at green and montgomery. i would like to thank chairman peskin and board member preston for bringing this resolution to the board. this resolution is a much more important than layoffs. the board of directors in golden gate highway and transportation district is short two members of the board of supervisors so i hope you employ your colleagues to step up and fill those positions because san francisco's economic recovery depends on having a workforce that is ready to transport the commuters back into san francisco and there's the pollution, liveability and traffic and parking issue that goes along with that and mass trance sit a part of the solution for climate change.

many city employees who are disaster workers live in petaluma and novato and many police, fire and nurses and district attorneys live in those areas and use the transit and win of my first jobs was in telegraph hill and i used to look down and see the sea of parking lots before golden gate transit was started to bring commuters from the north bay. so i really believe that this is a have isa very important measun francisco on many levels and including vision zero. so thank you so much and hopefully we can all get through this together. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker, please.

>> caller: my name is andrew and i've been a driver for golden gate transit for almost nine years. i wanted to recognize the board for recognizing us. it feels wonderful to have their backing in this moment that we're all face a charge of. i have a son with chronic asthma and i go to work scared of what i might giving him but in the meantime i'm still a part of maintaining society. i recognize and take responsibility for that. i would like to make sure and continue to fight for this and make sure we can get these layouts re-evaluated in january and have everyone with a holiday with healthcare.

thank you. >> your line may unmuted and you can start your comment. >> caller: thank you supervisors, especially supervisor preston, for bringing forward this legislation. my name is jason and i live in district 1 and i'm a daily public transit rider. the loss of demand for these jobs is temporary but the loss of these workers may be permanent. there's not a lot of trained bus drivers, sailors and machinist or other of these jobs. it's important we cannot afford to be short sided in this area. furthermore, it's unconscionable to cut these jobs where we're in the middle of a pandemic and we cannot be cutting people's

livelihoods and healthcare and it's absolutely egregious we're considering balancing budgets on the back of these good and necessary working class union jobs. and i urge you to send a strong message of the bridge board and tell them do not layoff these workers at the golden gate bridge. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm the president of animal ga mated transit union representing 250 brave and hard-working bus operators at golden gate. i want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for regularring the efforts and sacrifices these bus operators take on eye baile daily basis. we have an ongoing pandemic and the holidays right around the corner, layoffs could be devastating to these operators and their families.

as you you heard a month ago the golden gate bridge sent out 185 warn letters with so many question marks coming out of washington within the next two weeks, it's hard to believe the golden gate bridge wants to move forward with these layoffs. it isn't necessary. the golden gate bridge has $220 million in reserves as well as $20 million in operating reserves and grant funding with speaker pelosi has given the green light to use in emergency situations for administrative leave just like this covid-19 pandemic. $6 million of this money is earmarked to repave an employee parking lot. that's what what dealing with. with that said, the district has known this was coming. rather than plan with alternative measures other than layoffs such as furloughs they decided to layoff 185 middle-class union positions with the best approach which it isn't. i have brought to the attention of some golden gate bridge board directors and the coalition of unions was never approached to talk about anything other than layoffs. the board is now going back and fourth with the golden gate

bring looking at data and trying to come up with these important alternatives that should have been discussed months ago. as we inch closer to the election, possible shift in the white house and more importantly in the senate and the answer of funding mass transit gets closer and closer by the day. we know we're in a bad situation and as unions work tirelessly fort golden gate bridge and the people of san francisco we hope to be treated with dignity and respect through the holidays and we're not asking for time and to delay these layoffs we're only look to go get a clear picture after the election about the funding for mass transit and give the opportunity of these operate operators a nice holl date as a bay area resident i know the city has always been at the forefront of respecting what labor has done for this city so we can take this opportunity -- >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you will be verified your.

>> i'm david her era and i am a bus operator here at golden gate transit. i don't want to take a lot of your time. i want to echo what you heard from callers that the thank you for bringing this resolution forward. and the district. it shows your support for your neighborhoods and your communities. it is much appreciated by these effected employees during this pandemic. so, once again, i thank you for bringing this forward and thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. you have two minutes. you will be notified that your line sun muted and you may begin. >> hello my name is robert and i just want to make sure you are hearing me. >> we can hear you. >> caller: thank you, so my name is robert kaufmann and i'm a bus driver and i'm calling to ask

you to support this on behalf of my other co-workers myself and my passengers, what they want to speak of is talk to passengers not only are we looking at going ahead laying off drivers we're looking at reducing routes and i've had many of my passengers tell me that they have the option to tele commute or come into the city and we have the bus service has been reduced. it's too difficult for them to go ahead and come in so instead, they opt to go ahead and tele commute and i think it's in the best interest if you have business this is san francisco that need these people to come in so they come into work and they support the san francisco economy. once again, i'm just asking you to please support the resolution, thank you, very much. >> thank you so much. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, my name is robert and i'm a captain for golden gate ferry and i'm a member of the marine engineering beneficial association and i'd like to thank supervisor preston and peskin for and i have a family and a 2-year-old daughter who relies on my healthcare. as well as my income, since the start of this pandemic, i have been a an essential worker coming into the work in the midst of a pandemic doing public service. the district has funding to get us through this past. let's say january, to get us to the stimulus that should be coming towards the end of the year. as it was said before, money earmarked for a parking lot, $11 million for a boat they don't need. i'd just like to" board to push the bridge board to delay the layoffs until we have a stimulus coming. i'd like to point out the

economic ramifications laying off the most qualified workers who we do eventually come out of this. thank you, very much for your time. >> clerk: thank you next speak speaker. >> caller: hi, my name is robert and i'm a 38-year resident of district 9 in san francisco. i'm a 39 year member of the inland boat man's union. i want to begin by thanking supervisor preston for bringing forward this resolution and i just want to say that i think it's unconscionable the bridge district would consider layering off these 185 workers, the bus drivers, the deckhands, the captains, the machinists and they kept the bridge district and ferry and bus services running before the holidays.

the political situation is uncertain but there may be further federal money fourth coming and even if those get delayed, they should be accessed and that is the money that could be kept in people's pockets so they can keep roofs over there heads and groceries on the table and their healthcare intact and all toes important things and opposed to something that comes down in the future in the long run and i i want to remind folks what they came and he was told to put things on and in the long run we're all there. once again, thank you very much for considering this resolution and i look forward to speaking on it when it reaches the full board tomorrow. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> my name is art and i'm a district of district six and capture and i just want to echo how unconscionable they would layoff the brave workers and in this time but at all and this is really difficult work that they're doing and basically impossible situation in this time of extreme crisis coming to work in a pandemic and being essential workers and all of that and the city wants to let them go like this and it's unconscionable and the city didn't layoff a single police officer and now they layoff 100 operators and actually make our society run and it's time for the board to stand with the work investment and not the capitalist and g vet from this resolution. >> thank you. next speaker, please. you will be notified your line has been unmuted and you may

begin. > >> caller: hello. my name is freddy scott and i'm a bus driver with atu 1575 and i want to say thank you to the board of supervisors for their commitment and support. with this very difficult time for each and every one of us, i care for an elderly parent and i'm very fortunate to have my 93-year-old mother still with me and i do take care and support her and facing these potential layoffs and it's been quite as stressful time for us and especially going into the holidays season and just

having -- just worried and losing our healthcare benefits. i have been with this company for six years and i absolutely enjoy my job. i am a dedicated and skilled essential worker and as well as my other fellow workers, and we deserve more. there are other ways for the district to look for money i just want to say thank you for your support and supporting. >> next speaker, please? thank you. i am an organizer with the ilwu. and earlier today, a matter was sent to all the supervisors from the title officers and to the

full board encourage our supervisors to do everything within power to get a resolution passed tomorrow so we can accepted a strong message to the golden gate bridge and they need to retain these workers. also, this letter mentions among those will be impacted by the potential layoffs from the union, idu, the marine division of the ily and have been an integral for over 100 years and today, they continue to provide skill labor and the failures which is a important part of the transit system as many and have said, these are very skilled workers that the golden gate

bridge cannot afford to lose and so we encourage a strong vote today and a strong vote tomorrow and offend the strong message to the board. >> thank you, you have two minutes. >> caller: hi. so, i think we all need to acknowledge that this is a difficult time and it does call on us to make some difficult cuts. that's why i'm calling in actually to lend a voice to support cuts to police staffing, corporate profits and real estate speculation, i'm just being handed a card and this is about cutting union jobs and union town. ok, sorry, i must have misspoken it's a bad idea and we shouldn't

do that at all. what are you thinking any urge you to vote yes on this message to urge the golden gate transit board to protect these workers. thank you. >> caller: my name is jordan and i've been with golden gate transit for a little over three years now and it's easy to tell you how much we have operators appreciate you considering the resolutions to at least get us through the holidays. i have three kids at home. one is a seven-month-old and my other two are five and nine and so distance learning is happening and that's a full-time job in its self. so, between work and home, i have been extremely busy. i'm currently on the extra board and for those of who don't know what it means we do whatever our dispatchers tell us to do. we come in and take breaks and

when they tell us to so and since and i haven't missed a day. even when the fires that were happening, and another co-worker getting tested positive for covid, i was still there. i have so many amazing co-workers that are just like me. showing up to work every single day, and doing their job. so, thank you again and for everything you are doing to save our jobs and me so many drivers appreciate your efforts and support. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. the system will notified you have been unmuted and you may begin. >> caller: hello, board. this is christopher christianson with the long shore division. i'm just going to echo the statements made by our

international organizers august steen ramerez and say these jobs are vitally essential. the boat man's union, the marine division of the ilwu was deemed essential from out the date during this pandemic and without hesitation, have stepped up and gone to work tirelessly during this pandemic and they are also considered essential for any sort of disasters that may partake this city and county of san francisco and all around the greater bay area. so, bus drivers, ferry and transit workers are vitally essential during this time and to echo august teen and support

the union work in san francisco a hugely supportive thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. land use and community members and on september 11th where the country is still mourning a horrific tragedy, i along with my co-workers were issued notices for layoffs. the levels of stress and insecurity has decreased moral and the trust and a growing concern how this would affect our livelihood. it would be detrimental financially and emotionally because my husband has phase 4

reno and is living -- i'm sorry, i'm getting emotional. is living by being on dialysis. next month, it would make seven years for him living with this disease which is keeping him alive. just when he has finally had the trance plant list my job son the line. i cannot afford to lose my healthcare benefits during this pandemic. i urge you could vote no. on behalf of all the employees of golden gate bridge highway and transportation, please september my appreciation for this support you and your staff are doing to work with the district board of directors to come up with another solution to avoid these layoffs. thank you and have a blessed day. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> my name is evan i'm a

resident of san francisco district 4. co-chair of the laboring committee democratic social of american san francisco. i'm calling because i want to echo what everybody has said in terms of these cuts being unconscionable. right now or every. you heard call in are raising families off these jobs, they're taking care of folks in their lives through their healthcare and they've, along with their unions, fought for decades to make these jobs where people can survive and thrive in the bay area san francisco is a union town so i want to thank the supervisors for pushing i pushid the skilled necessary position these are the types of jobs that we need to keep and support and these aren't tech jobs, these aren't jobs that are going to pay poverty pages, these are good jobs and they pay good

wages and they have good healthcare and we need to protect those and do everything in our power to keep these people working so thank you, so much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for taking my call. my name is robert estrada and i'm the region at district offer the inland boat man's union and we're part of a labor coalition at the golden gate bridge district. we represent the terminal agents at the bridge district. i would very much like to express my gratitude for supervisor peskin and also peskin, ronen, mar, walton and haney for co-sponsoring. san francisco's long been a labor down and others have pointed out and the forward-thinking region more broadly we're used to seeing issues and setting the model for response here in a positive way and it means demonstrating

creative and just solution to problems that present. unfortunately in this case, our region may be on the cutting edge in what we would rather avoid as setting the model. other transit agencies around the country have managed to keep workers on the payroll through national emergency and looking at t. i consider washington state ferries on to our water emergency transit authority here in the bay area and protect the workers under the new year and they found a way to do it and we see this is something that the bridge district could in reage and paving a parking lot or the federal coverage and members have said also, i'm not coming up with original original but it makes no sense to lay people off especially considering fact that we may be looking at substantive

changes in our national political landscape bringing funding to trance regency so i have this resolution be passed through committee and of course to open up full board ratification and we have 200 families that will be greatly effected by what the bridge district decides in your voices and value assistance to the security the of the daily lives and thank you all in advance for your support. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> next speaker, please. >> >> hello, my name is (inaudible) and i'm 20-years-old and i'm a student and worker. i live in marine county and i was born and raised in san francisco. i commute into the city everyday over the golden gate bridge and even through the pandemic and my whole family does. i have so many friends and

family take a ferry and the rich and wealthy have made billions off of people's death and suffering and it's unimaginable we're having to fight to protect the jobs of hard-working san franciscans who keep this city running. it's not the board of the golden gate bridge who makes the buses go day by date it's the people you are hearing on these calls who risk their lives to keep our city functional. and the fact that we are having to argue for these people to keep their jobs right now, of all times, is disgusting, these people deserve to keep their jobs and this is a union town and we will not fire union workers and we node to make sure that we know who our enemies are. we know who are the people who are benefiting off of this and the people who are making sure that we are helping who we can and royal now firing these workers and redistrict the pain of this pandemic in this economic decline downwards is helping none of us. so thank you so much.

please support this resolution and tell the board of the golden gate bridge we have not fire worker unions not now or ever. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. i'm a san francisco receipt department and dsa member who grew up in the north bay. as the caller before me, golden gate transit were valuable and they are an essential transit service for me. i want to thank supervisor preston for bringing forward the resolution and they will take steps to support the jobs and 185 workers who make the public services a success and support the unions who make san francisco a good city for all of us. the city needs to retain a viable city for working class

and and the bridge workers it will be difficult and impossible to rebuild our public transit in the future. police officers from layoffs. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. please. >> >> can you hear me now. >> yes, you may proceed. >> hello, again, it's david toped and if someone can look at that page three the first two lines on page three, that is actually incorrect. the board of supervisors appoints eight of the directors and the mayor is one of the directors so perhaps that could be amended.

and i believe the board, through this resolution, and hopefully what the mayor's signature can put the entire city on record on this issue. [please stand by]

-- and as a 13-year member of the board of supervisors, the last speaker is correct. we do actually appoint eight, four of them being members of the board of supervisors and four others being members at large. so let me just pull up the subject resolution. and see if we want to fix that. that was at what line? >> through the chair, it was on page 3, he said, but i don't see -- i'm sorry -- page 3, line 1.

>> he is correct. so, supervisor peskin, this is your ordinance, but i do believe that 9 should become 8 at line one on page 3. >> just trying to locate that line now. >> line nine on the third page. it says the board -- we appoint eight of nine, that is correct. >> got it. oh, i see. yes, that's -- >> i mean, we could say whereas the city of san francisco appoints nine or we could say that whereas the board appoints eight. >> why don't we say eight -- the city of san francisco appoints nine? >> okay. >> so before san francisco on line one and remove board of

supervisors. >> perfect. so amendment made by supervisor preston. madam clerk, a roll call on that amendment, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated [roll call] you have three ayes. >> thank you. insofar as that is a non-substantive amendment, can we -- supervisor preston, would like to make this a motion to send to the full board as amended. >> clerk: [roll call] you have three ayes. >> madam clerk, read the next item. >> clerk: yes, item 7, ad are an

ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the housing stability fund for the acquisition, creation, and operation of affordable social housing developments, and establishing the housing stability fund oversight board to advise the board of supervisors regarding the use of the housing stability fund. the members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number 7 should call the number streaming on your screen, that is 1-(415)-655=0001. and the meeting idea is 1467842743. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, press star and 3 to line up to speak for item number 7. please wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted when we get to public comment. >> thank you. supervisor preston, the floor is yours for the last item and this item and the next item. >> supervisor preston: all right, thank you, chair peskin. so two weeks ago as this

committee contract tw contract f legislation with the ballot measure, prop i, along with two companion ordinances that seek to fund housing stability. so the committee considered and accepted substantive amendments before the item before us, the housing stability fund. and the file as amended now that is before us today. as a reminder, the housing stability fund is intended to finance the creation and acquisition of permanently affordable social housing. this includes land banking, community land trusts, non-profit and affordable housing or other social housing efforts where the city or the residents or a non-profit maintains an interest in the property or the land while providing a permanently affordable housing on site. since introduces th introducinge back in june i have worked with a range of experts in affordable housing, including and with

thanks to the council of community housing organizations to fine tune the details of this ordinance. i think that a fund of this nature is imperative. in july this committee received a report from the planning department which detailed the shortfall that our city faces each year to meet our affordable housing goals and the amount is daunting, $517 million annually. it is short of hitting our intended targets. so the reality is that our proposal and the legislation before us only gets us part of the way there. but if we're serious about building the affordable housing that we need, it starts with dedicating resources to -- particularly to some of the traditionally underfunded affordable housing strategies that we have. and that really is at the heart of the intent of this legislation. so it is in that vain that i

introduce an additional amendment today which i'm assured by the city attorney is non-substantive in nature that. seeks to prioritize the educator housing as the fund that it is in an implementation phase. and the amendment on page three that is circulated to committee members at lunch, 15 to 18 that follows, with the intent of the board of supervisors -- or not present intent -- the board of supervisor's present intent to expenditures made through december 31, 2022, a min inum of 20% of those funds to be prioritized for social housing developments that provide housing for educators in san francisco. on january 14th of this year, the san francisco board of education passed a resolution in support of educator affordable housing development which call for in part, quote, creative financing models for affordable

teacher development by the district in partnership with the city and county of san francisco. the amendment that i proposed today seeks to make good on that partnership called for by that resolution. in addition, i am introducing clerical amendments relative to the oversight board, some of which were suggested by the clerk's office and thank you for these suggestions. they are as follows -- one is to allow for a maximum of two four-year terms, so we believe that the oversight board will be well served by individuals who have sufficient time to develop a long-term approach to affordable housing. and so that's been made possible by extending the term limits, instead of folks serve one term and allowing them to serve two. so on page 5, line 8, strike, quote "a four-year" and insert, quote "two full terms."

and on page 5, line 14-16, insert, quote "thereafter all terms are for four years for purposes of the term limit serving an additional -- an initial term of two or three years or serving more than half of the four-year term shall count as serving a full term." second of the amendments from the clerk indicate that the board is permanent. it's my understanding that -- that the board rules indicate that bodies shall be effective for a maximum of three years unless otherwise provided. so the intention of this body is for the oversight body to be permanent in nature. therefore, we're including language to that effect on page 7, lines 15-18, inserting a section on the sunset clause that says "notwithstanding rules of order which provides that advisory bodies created by the board should sunset within three

years, the board intends oversight board to exist indefinitely unless terminated by ordinance." and the next is to reduce the number of seats from 15 to 11 on the oversight body. it's suggested by a number of folks and the suggestions were well received to make this -- proposing this size reduction and the board really to bring the composition more in line with other oversight bodies that are similar in size and easier to manage. so these amendments are delineated with the numerical changes that you see on page 4 of the ordinance. and then, finally, in order to provide an opportunity to address any issues on implementation, chair peskin, and supervisor safai, i would like to move also to duplicate the file, continue the original to the call of the chair before we vote on any of the foregoing

amendments. after that i would like to make a motion to adopt the amendments that i have described and then move the file to the full board with positive recommendation. and finally i just want to again to thank the co-sponsored, supervisors ronen, mar, walton and haney. and looking forward to continuing to work with those stakeholders and the board members on this critical package before us. thank you. >> it appears that some are substantive. so you said that you wanted to duplicate the file before the amendments, keep one as originally presented in committee, continue it to the call of the chair, and then to amend the duplicated file and i think that -- but i'll defer to counsel, that would have to be continued to another committee hearing because some of those amendments may be substantive?

but i'll defer to counsel. >> our understanding and counsel can confirm, although they are numerous, they are not substantive. but the city attorney -- >> is that because of the work -- (indiscernible) the intent? >> that's correct. they are numerous but not substantive and that's a reflection of non-binding intent. >> got it, thank you, perfect. thank you miss pearson. why don't we open this up for public comment? i don't see supervisor sa safais name on the roster. any members of the public who would like to comment on item number 7. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. james is checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. james, let us know if there are any callers that are ready and go ahead and queue them in. >> you have seven lined up. >> caller: supervisors, district

5 for seniors on long-term affordable housing advocate in support of the housing stability fund ordinance. but i also support (indiscernible) that we keep in mind we have 8,000 homeless, thousands of low-income singles and seniors and adults with disabilities on fixed incomes, and domestic abuse. and (indiscernible) city hall (indiscernible). last year san francisco had built no affordable units and this is a drop in the bucket.

you have a pandemic (indiscernible) and put market rate units in the reach. social housing is a good idea but it's for an average of 80% of medium income. many people over 80%, up to 200% of their (indiscernible) and even the (indiscernible) has said that the majority of housing should be under 80% a.m.i. you need to amend the ordinance further to increase the (indiscernible) and to favor low-income groups. if we don't there's a danger of just ending up with more (indiscernible) and a further danger of a major conflict later on over different expectations of some. so social housing, yes, but

improved through a non-european san francisco equity loan. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name is teresa imperial of affordable housing program. and we're here to strongly support the housing ability fund legislation. it will bring more needed resources to do more affordable housing for families and communities. and we know that we greatly need it, especially in this time. in this time as well, many people today are impacted by housing cost burdens, overcrowding and displacement and have the impacts of covid-19. we see that in our office every day asking for affordable housing and looking for rental subsidies.

we believe that the housing stability fund will promote different kinds of models for different kinds of affordable housing. and we need to have innovative solutions and not just one type of solution. i believe that the housing stability fund will provide that as well. so we strongly support it and thank you supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: good to hear from you. next speaker, please. >> caller: thank you, committee members, supervisors. bruce wolffe, the president of the san francisco community land trust. i want to thank supervisor preston and his staff and the co-sponsors and everybody else who has been working on this, including the council of community housing organizations. this is a very important ordinance to support prop i and we wholeheartedly support it.

and i urge you and i vote at committee today. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wolff. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. this is peter cohen with the council of community housing organizations. i do strongly support this legislation, as you have heard from a number of our organizations and the organizations really represent those who collectively build and deliver housing and housing services to regular people, everyday folks in our communities in this time of covid and economic crisis that has made the need for affordable housing across a wide spectrum even more urgent and dramatic. so this legislation couldn't come at a better time. you know, there's a basic principle of affordable housing which is that if we need and we

want more affordable housing, as everyone seems to agree right now, then we need to program more resources. it's really that simple. and this new fund that's in that important direction -- i want to call on really to appreciate that the sponsor reached out early to us and other affordable housing experts for feedback and vetting in the design of this legislation. this is not just the same old-same old and i appreciate that there's been a lot of careful thought to it. i will end by saying that one of the things that this fund can do is to support housing preservation. we do not in san francisco have a dedicated source of funding for housing preservation, and yet we have done so well over the last three or four years with remarkable projects. but it's just been a band-aid approach of getting money together. and this fund could be really be one of the foundations for ensuring that we can step up that work and save homes and save buildings and save people.

there was a ucla report that came out this weekend -- just this weekend -- and it is entitled "who profits from crisis?" the subtitle is "housing grabs in times of recovery." and it lifts from the 2008 recession of what we saw thousands and thousands of homes pulled from underneath people, both renters and homeowners. >> your time is up. >> caller: thank you. >> thank you, mr. cohen. next speaker. >> caller: linda chapman. i want to thank supervisor preston and, you know, i'm very pleased to having read the oversight board that, obviously, in those three community positions you'd be able to put one or more people who have hard core experience of living in co-ops and condos as opposed to funding them. and maybe of dealing with echo which is the -- you know, what

would you say -- the professional association of us condo and co-op owners. i'm hoping that cara will be able to get some state legislation to help regulate the way that these operations function. i have been to some programs, one that was put on for co-os recently before the shutdown, including the national representatives with resources and so on. so i have good hope that you might be able to get people to help them. i'm puzzled about the zip codes. certainly when i lived in 94122 where i grew up, that it made sense, a certain uniformity of it. but 94109, i don't know what the impact will be. it seems to have something to do whether you'll locate them and that goes from tenderloin and russian hill and north waterfront or 94133 is supposed

to be like the highest priced and most welty i wealthy in terf real estate but it also includes chinatown. so i'm not quite showe sure hows will function. we did analysis by zip code and found that our neighborhood was one of the most diverse economically. we had, you know, lower income and smaller households and more older people and so on. but we didn't include a track that went into chinatown because that would have -- although that was part of our area -- it was a different district with different characteristics. >> speaker's time has expired. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. >> next speaker. >> caller: hi, my name is aloxo rama, with the policy and community organizing and we're representing the affordable housing community and we build

and deliver housing, affordable housing services, for regular people. and including low-income and formerly homeless people. one of the things that we realy like about this legislation is that it expands uses from our traditional low-income affordable housing projects to a range of innovative and affordable models for which there's little funding currently, including hom homeownerships and cooperatives and limited equity housing co-ops. and we need it all above to look at the need continues to widen. our partnership, we work with people that are formerly homeless in low supportive housing and it's always a challenge to have housing that folks would be able to move into as the next step of their housing stability. and i look forward to creating and expanding more of those housing opportunities for all of our community. thank you so much.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i am with the council of community housing organizations. supervisors, thank you for this much-needed new fund for housing stability. i think that as peter mentioned earlier, one of the things that is very much on our minds is how we are responding to covid-19 and to the economic shakeout that is going to happen as a result of the pandemic and as a result of the recession. and for that we need a housing specific response, we need not only to stabilize tenants where they are today, which i believe that we all will be speaking about very shortly, but also how to get ahead with the wave of speculation that is going to happen. that being the funding and the stable source that really

addresses the new ways of looking at housing, whether that is new kinds of rental housing and housing preservation and land trust or limited housing cooperatives. we need new solutions on ways to expand the work that our affordable housing developers are able to do. so we're very encouraged by this legislation and by the forward looking nature of this board of supervisors to look at these solutions and really to understand the problems that are coming down our way. so i encourage you all to support this legislation. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> that was the last public comment. >> okay. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank

you, chair peskin. yeah, i -- unless there's questions, colleagues -- >> right. so you duplicated the file as of this, and why don't you make a motion to continue the unduplicated file to the call of the chair. >> supervisor preston: so moved. >> on that motion a roll call please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated [roll call] you have three ayes. >> and then motion to amend the remaining file. as previously -- that were previously discussed.

>> clerk: on the motion to amend a duplicate file [roll call] you have three ayes. >> then a motion to send the non-substantive amended file to the full board with recommendation motion please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated, [roll call] you have three ayes. >> next item, please. >> clerk: item number 8 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the covid-19 rent resolution and relief fund, to provide financial support to landlords whose tenants have been unable to pay rent due to covid-19 pandemic. members of the public who wish

to provide public comment on this item should call the number streaming on the screen. that is 1-(415)-655=0001. and the meeting 1467842743 and press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please press star and then 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. please wait until we get to public comment and the system will indicate that you have been unmuted and you can begin your comments. excuse me. mr. chair. >> thank you, madam clerk. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair peskin, and thank you for all of the time on these various items. some short remarks on this one as we considered at our meeting of october 5th and as referenced in my remarks on the previous item, that the rent resolution and relief fund is the second of two ordinances related to the fair recovery

package that i've described. the rent resolution relief fund is designed to assist small property owner whose tenants are impacted by covid-19 and have been unable to pay their rent during the state of emergency. under the approach as outlined, if the landlord voluntarily waives the debt obligation for the impacted tenants, the landlord then will be eligible to receive a percentage of the rent owed through a grant from this fund. the legislation gives priority to small property owners defined as landlords with 10 or more rental units in the city and as well as landlords facing loss of salary. and i appreciate that the last meeting amendments were accepted and i request that we move the item as previously amended to

the full board with positive recommendations. thank you. >> thank you. and supervisor preston, i i didn't say this at the last meeting but this is what we call -- well, it's not a mandate but it is unfunded at this point. i just want to be very clear about that. i mean, this is -- this is early on and i appreciate the fact that you're setting up something. (please stand by)