services, connecting to address service gaps. for example, we reinstituted the affordable service line to make sure that the housing development had transit access, and then restating the -- reinstating the 30 short and the 27 to address concerns in the chinatown corridor. so due to the need of increased service and the need to reduce crowding on the city's transit, the bus changes and associated street changes were approved by the director of transit as well as the city traffic engineer. so just in summary, covid-19 service changes are an opportunity to respond to an emergency in transportation challenges and ensure transportation and safety of public health during this truly unprecedented time, and that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to take questions.

>> president yee: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president yee. i just want to make sure i understand the situation here, and i guess a question for mr. kennedy. so as i understand it, this is sort of the j -- i understand the plans that were in place as an emergency response. but then, now with rail service not coming back for this foreseeable future, any changes to the j, are they on hold now, pending the reopening of the -- of the rail service? right. so we are -- we will be -- depending on the outcome of this appeal process, we will be going to our m.t.a. board, advancing the second phase of the j project, which would

coincide with bringing back the j rail changes in early february, late january. that means it would go across market to church and duboce during approve by our board, and when service would build up, we would build a temporary accessible boarding platform at safeway there that would allow that service to go into effect. >> supervisor preston: i think what i'm trying to understand is this gets to how moot this may relate to this appeal. forget the fact that things were suspended due to the peal. if there had not been an appeal, but there had been a decision made prior to moving this emergency response forward, m.t.a. had decided, whatever reason, made the call not to move forward with rail on what could be up -- in other

context of eight month to a year time frame. would this even be moving forward? eventually, this project became moot basically once the problems with rail surfaced, and there was a plan to reinstate rail surface. z >> as far as the j goes, so it was always planned to be in two phases. when we were thinking about the first phase, of course, we were assuming that the subway would be operational, and since the subway wasn't operational, and we had to run bus service along the j, that definitely changed the trajectory of the project, but we still planned to bring back j train service, like i said, starting at the end of december, so we're 1.5 months

away from bringing back that train service, and it would not go through the tunnel because, as you know, the tunnel is going through some other changes and other concerns. there would not be train service in the tunnel when the j returns, but we will be bringing the j back and connecting to the n bus. >> supervisor preston: i see. thank you for that clarification. i didn't realize that independent of whether the tunnel's open or not that it would move forward. yeah, i -- and one other question, and i'm not sure if this is for planning staff or m.t.a., but i'm trying to understand what the relevance here is of -- the appellants claim that there was an intent prior to the covid emergency to make these changes to the j. my question is, does that matter? in other words, is -- even if

there is -- even, you know, in taking the representations about statements made back in 2019 about this as a potential change to improvement service as described, and then, we indisputably face an emergency, and this is an emergency response -- again, i don't know if that's a question for planning or city attorney -- but if we accept there was an intent on the part of m.t.a. to do this any way, but then, it was also done or accelerated as an emergency response, does that, as the appellants claim, affect the impact of doing this as an emergency response? >> jennie diluna, planning department staff. when we evaluate planning projects, we evaluate for this particular statutory exemption, does it meet the definition of

a statutory exemption, so whether or not whether some aspects were considered prior, if it would mitigate that emergency, then, it is statutorily exempt. >> supervisor preston: okay. thank you for that. i just want to say, that this is a recurrent issue on a lot of these appeals. i just want to make clear, that just because before the emergency, our m.t.a. has decided that maybe it would be a good idea to make something a slow street or maybe it would be a good idea to change a rail service. just because that thought has been entertained, prior to an emergency, it's my understanding and as you just confirmed, it doesn't undercut the idea that these things can be legitimate and legally defensible responses to the covid emergency, and i just -- i appreciate the clarification on that. thank you. >> president yee: thank you. i see no other colleagues on

the roster, so i'm going to go ahead and invite the public who wants to make public comment in opposition of the appeal and in support of the project. you have -- go ahead and lineup by pressing star and three to be added to the queue, and then, you have two minutes to speak. madam clerk, go ahead. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. president. operations, can we hear from the first caller, please. welcome, caller. >> hi. mr. [inaudible], thank you for your comments. i was particularly interested in the comment about the 30 short. my understanding is the 30 short has been eliminated, and instead, the 60-foot buses have been extended not only throughout the 30 but on the 30 through chrissy field. [inaudible] we were told that

it's an emergency. it's hard to know what emergency services were needed at chrissy field, especially if 60 foot buses were removed from the 5 fulton which services numerous hospitals and golden gate park, a far more used recreation area. we were given no notice, yet we find out that there's been a five-year agreement signed between the authority and the municipal trust. it seems disingenuous that this was an emergency. finally, that there's no ridership on the line when it extends out to chrissy field. i see one or two riders maximum on a 60-foot bus. it seems that that capacity could be much better used

somewhere else. so i urcge you to not do the extension of the chrissy line, put that somewhere else where it could better serve the people of sf. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your time. operations, could you unmute the next caller, please. >> hello. >> clerk: we hear you. welcome. >> hello? oh, hi. my name is hayden miller. this is for opposition, correct, to the appeal? >> clerk: that's correct. >> president yee: yes. >> okay. i wanted to speak in opposition to this because the appeal is just another frivolous attempt to delay emergency response projects by the sfmta that really benefit the essential workers who are riding transit right now. you know, muni service is

already suffering due to the pandemic, and these projects just bring a little bit of hope to the essential workers who have to ride transit right now, and so these frivolous appeals that are delaying and preventing these projects, it's really ridiculous, and it's sad that people in our communities would file these appeals, and big corporations are filing these appeals that hurt transit riders and essential workers. it's really a shame, so i urge you to reject this appeal, keep the project, help keep essential workers and riders safe during this pandemic. >> clerk: all right. thank you for your comments, sir. operations, can we hear from the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is cat carter with san francisco transit riders. i urge you to approve items 23

and item 27. of course, we're absolutely still in the middle of an emergency, during this emergency with very little capacity, muni is still serving over 150,000 trips per day. just because people don't see a lot of riders at church and duboce or in the marina or whatever doesn't mean that other areas of that route aren't totally packed. we need new amendments to implement during the pandemic to make transit more efficiently, make muni run more efficienty. with very little resources, we shouldn't have muni wasting time in traffic. further, booze these a-- becaue these amendments are temporary, private projects allow providers to get the benefits sooner. riders aren't stuck in waiting

f until any decision is made. we need to put the riders on muni first. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. before the next speaker, there are about 27 listeners in the queue. if you're interested in speaking on this hearing, please press star, three. okay. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> good afternoon -- or good evening, supervisors. my name is robert, and i live in district 5. i ask you to reject these appeals. i think -- as someone who lives on page street, i'm well acquainted with muni's efforts at physical distancing measures during the pandemic, and they've been wildly successful on page street in my opinion

and the opinions of my neighbors. frankly, we need greater social distancing, and we also need transit improvements. i've seen the packed capacity on muni buses before and after the pandemic. we need all the capacity that we can get. i have very vivid memories of packed subway trains after seeing that m.t.a. slide from -- with the pictures of -- inside the cars, so please, reject the appeals. we need these changes. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. we're currently taking public comment in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> operator: madam clerk, that completes the queue. >> clerk: on you. thank you. mr. president? >> president yee: okay. thank you for your comments, and as there's no other member

of the public lined up, public comment is now closed. so last thing, i will invite both appellants to present rebuttal arguments. mr. pilpell, you will have up to three minutes, and you may go ahead. >> once again, i believe safeway is going to go first here. thanks. >> president yee: okay. i don't think there's any rules for this, but i'll go ahead and oblige you. safeway, go ahead, you have three minutes. >> thank you. m.t.a. said that this project has been done to provide a level of service that prevents overcrowding and vehicles, you allowing essential trips to be made. however, the j church only has a few people on it, and there's no mass crowding. there's plenty of room for social distancing to meet their

needs. in addition, they came when evaluating projects, they can, if it meets the definition of emergency at that time, they can proceed with it, however, as stated in castaic, if [inaudible] the emergency statutory exemption, and that is the exact situation that we are in currently. the j project seeks to address existing infrastructure issues that have been in place for years as identified in slides provided by m.t.a. further, it was claimed that there is a high probability in the short-term to justify reliance under ceqa guidelines 59269c. the guidelines of subdivision c

prevent the guidelines of the emergency exemption. it states that the emergency exception does not include long-term projects taken for the purpose that has a low probability of occurrence in the short-term. in this case, the muni subway is not anticipated to resumeless resumelesses -- resume services in the near. in addition, the projects claim to make changes to church street, which it does, and by doing that, it limits traffic on the block to just local and commercial vehicles. that limitation alters the street such that it is no longer -- it no longer is clarified as a highway under state law, and the mass transit exemption cannot be utilized in this instance.

further there was statemented by targeted outreach with r -- statements by targeted outreach with regards to safeway. we've been working diligently to talk with m.t.a. and address the issues, but we've been unable to reach a final conclusion, which lead us to draw these appeals. it's our opinion that emergency mass transit exceptions are not politicable, and the reason that we are here today. thank you. >> president yee: thank you. mr. pilpell? mr. pilpell, are you still there? >> yes. hello, can you hear me now? >> president yee: yes. >> okay. sorry. there were issues with unmuting. i'll try not to repeat what you just heard. in my october 23 appeal brief,

at the bottom of page 5, i discussed, in a long paragraph, some of the issues and uncertainties around the market street subway. i don't think that that subway's reopening at any time soon. there is time to conduct environmental review here. there is time for meaningful public outreach and engagement. this may be an unprecedented time, but it is not an emergency under ceqa. beyond ceqa, the relevance of transit during the pandemic and beyond is very much at issue. if many people aren't taking transit now and in the future, the principles and assumptions, travel demand models, land use, all kinds of things that support muni are in question. supervisor preston properly started to frame that dialogue with his earlier question, and that dialogue needs to continue. planning and m.t.a. keep saying that the projects mitigate the

emergency. they don't. we still have new cases and deaths in san francisco, we still have bus service instead of rail. we're losing or have lost much of the ridership, transit ridership, which may never return, much to our dismay. what we need is to restore at least weekend level transit service throughout the service, including routes like the 3, the 21, the 27, the 31, the 33, plenty of other routes in the system. the local emergency was proclaimed almost nine months ago, and no one knows when or if it will end. ceqa does not contemplate an ongoing condition satisfying the emergency exemption. whether the transit service changes are good or bad, they do not prevent or mitigate an emergency as defined. i urge you to carefully consider the arguments and the record before you and reverse

the exemptions. once again, i can answer any questions, and thank you. >> president yee: thank you. okay. i don't see anybody on the roster, and so i want to thank everybody, and this public hearing has been held and is now filed. [gavel]. >> president yee: okay. as previously discussed, we will take up consideration of determination of the statutory exemption from environmental review from the california environmental quality act for each project, which involves an analysis of whether the determination from thepolitaning department was appropriate. to conditionally reverse planning's decision, six votes of the board are required. colleagues, do you have any -- anybody have any comments? i see that -- supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president.

before we get to the merits or lack thereof of this appeal, insofar as this is, in essence, a quasi-judicial hearing, and as a full member of the california coastal commission and a current member of the bay conservation and development commission, i take the quasi-nature of these hearings very, very seriously. i wanted to start, and i mean no disrespect to my colleagues, with a threshold issue. we cannot, based on what we've seen, heard, and read, adjudicate this issue. and to my colleague representing district 6, the

press release released this morning, based on the appeals bought by one or two individuals, whether or not the district 6 supervisor believes that he is able to hear this in an unbiased quasi judicial manner. >> president yee: so supervisor -- >> supervisor peskin: and if he's not, then i would suggest that he recuse himself. >> president yee: supervisor in district 6, would you like to respond in. >> supervisor preston: -- i -- >> i can hear this in an unbiased manner. thank you. >> president yee: anything else, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: no, mr. president. thank you. >> president yee: so we have a couple of options, and i'd like

to entertain a motion for one of the options. would anybody like to affirm the planning department's statutory exemption for the environmental review? >> supervisor preston: so moved, supervisor preston. >> president yee: okay. is there a second? >> supervisor mandelman: second. >> president yee: seconded by supervisor mandelman, i believe? yes? >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. >> president yee: okay. okay. then why don't we -- the motions are approved -- this is for 22, right? so the motion is to approve item 23 and to table items 24 and 25, made by supervisor preston and seconded by

supervisor mandelman. would you please call the roll. >> clerk: okay. on the motion to approve item 23 and table 24 and 25 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, item 23 is approved, and items 24 and 25 are tabled. [gavel]. >> president yee: we will take up consideration of the determination of the statutory exemption from environmental

review from the california jiermt environmental quality act for the proposed m.t.a. covid-19 muni rail service adjustments and associated street parking changes -- and parking changes august 22, 2020 and fall 2020 projects. so if i could entertain a motion to approve item 27 and table items 28 and 29. >> supervisor mandelman: i'll make that motion if i can say a brief thing about it. >> president yee: i'm sorry. you can make a motion, and you can say a brief thing about it.

>> supervisor preston: i hear the frustration from safeway, and it's not just safeway, but many of the businesses along church street that have been impacted by the changes to -- to the rail there, and i have a lot of frustration for -- frankly, about the way that that has rolled out. my office expressed our concerns. it appeared that at least one business has gone out because of the changes that have been made here. i do not believe this has been the m.t.a.s finest hour, and none of that is seek i can't. so i do believe as the ceqa matter, we should affirm the exemption, but i have sadness and concern at what has happened at church and market.

>> supervisor peskin: hear, hear. >> president yee: thank you for your comment. is there a second for the motion? made by supervisor peskin, okay. so roll call on the motion to approve items 27, and table items 28 and 29. >> clerk: okay. on the motion to approve item 27, table 28 and 29 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes.

>> supervisor peskin: due process ain't that bad. thank you, mr. president. >> president yee: i concur. without objection, item 27 and approved, and items 28 and 29 are tabled. [gavel]. >> president yee: so we have one more 3:00 p.m. special order. please call the next item. >> clerk: item 30 is a hearing of the board of supervisors to sit as a committee of the whole to hold a public hearing on the shelter-in-place rehousing and site demobilization plan. >> president yee: all right. colleagues, we are now convened as a committee of the whole to hold a hearing on the shelter

in place rehousing and site demobilization plan. without objection, we will proceed in follows. first, we'll have opening remarks from supervisor walton, then, we'll hear from controller ben rosenfield, director of the department of homelessness and housing, and department of emergency management, mary ellen carroll. then, we'll hear from providers who have been serving shelter in place hotels, including community partnership housing. we'll then open it up for questions and comments. following that, they'll then have two minutes each for those who win to provide public comments. with that, supervisor walton,

would you like to make some opening remarks? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, president yee, and colleagues, thank you for convening today as a committee of the whole so we can learn more about the shelter in place rehousing and demobilization plan. on october 27, my colleagues, supervisors haney, ronen, preston, and i, also sent a letter to the department of homelessness and supportsive housing requesting a response from the department outlining the plan for their shelter in place rehousing and site demobilization plan. this response to this request has been forwarded to everyone's office today. we are still in a pandemic, and just today, mayor breed and dr. colfax announced the rolling back of our reopening. we are concerned about the process and timeline of shelter in place rehousing and demobilization of our shelters.

i want to acknowledge the work that the department of homelessness and supportive housing and the department of emergency management have done in collaboration with our service providers during this pandemic in keeping our people safe, but we [inaudible] is transparent and ensures that no one, especially our most vulnerable populations, exit back onto the streets. today, we have, as explained, the department of homelessness and supportive housing, department of emergency management, some of our emergency management and controllers speaking otoday, ad i think it's very important that we understand, and i hope we get a further explanation from the department of homelessness and supportive

housing, that the numbers haven't matched in anything that i've received or seen that says that as we move folks from s.i.p. hotels, that they will be going back into shelter and not back on the street, which is a commitment we've made as a city, and we must make sure that we don't do anything that would put folks back on the street. thank you so much, president yee. i believe you're on mute. >> president yee: thank you, supervisor walton. now, we will go ahead and have a presentation from ben rosenfiel rosenfie rosenfield, director, and director of the department of emergency management, mary ellen carroll. and i've asked them to be

precise about their presentations so we can move quickly, so mr. controller, ben ro rosenfield. >> hi, actually, this is mary ellen carroll. i'm going to kick it off for this evening. >> president yee: my script says you're last, so, you know, hey -- welcome, mary ellen. >> okay. yeah, i'm happy to -- very pleased to be here this evening with you, honorable board of supervisors. again, i'm mary ellen carol, and i'm the director of the department of emergency management and here representing san francisco's covid-19 command center. the covid command center, which is physically located at moscone south, it's structured to manage our overall emergency response to this global

pandemic. this includes the shelter in place hotels and the operations associated with them and with city's reimbursement commissions to fema, the federal emergency management agency. since july, we have been in this what we called unified command structure. the departments that represent the command organization at the open are department of public health, department of emergency management and human services agency with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. so the city -- in addition, the city's administrator office, the controller's office, and other departments play major rolls in this -- roles in this unified command, and today, i'm

joined by my colleagues, ben rosenfield. so at this time, i'm going to turn it over to ben rosenfield, who will talk about the operations. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors and president yee. i was asked to provide some very high level overview on the budget for this program, so i thought i would run through a couple of high-level comments, and then, after abigail presents, i'd be happy to answer any questions on the board's mind. as you know, the s.i.p. budget is roughly $178 million, and