>> he is just interviewed for an position. i'm confident that opportunities of this magnitude will grow with this program. it is one of the top medical schools in the country. please listen to the support and the community of the citizens we serve. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i live in district five.

i'm in support of the resolution to delay this project. i'm concerned mou is being rushed too fast without scrutiny. the community needs to voice concerns and questions. give us time to read and understand what is being proposed. my main concern has to do with accountability. how is mou going to be enforced. uc sf has already broken the previous agreement with the city. why should we trust them again when they already violated that trust. it's imperative that they have

transparency and accountability so they never break that trust again. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi. i'm from district three. i ask any son, a resident. where do you get such passion. this promises health care structure that is badly needed today. have you forgotten that health care research -- it promises a thousand homes. 40% affordable. that is needed today. have you forgetten the thousands of men and women that live on

the streets. i have not. when you say three months. it's a short time. start with -- have the capacity to solve our problems. approve this project immediately without delay, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> hello. my name is terry black. i'm a san francisco resident and uc sf patient. i'm calling in support of the project and propose the resolution. others on this call have better articulated the policy reasons. i just wanted to make a few points. the first of which as others have stated . the perfect is the enemy of the good. we're never going to get anywhere in the city if we wait

for people to solve our problems. i want to encourage people on this call that we live in this city. there will be taller buildings. lastly, i want to encourage the supervisors to consider all the people that are not on this call. another caller mentioned that there was a survey that seventy six percent of neighborhood residents are aware of this plant. most people don't bother to call in. people that don't call in don't really oppose the plan. what i encourage the supervisors to remember is what you've heard from dozens if not hundreds of people today there's thousands of residents you are not hearing from today because they support the plan. the negative voices on the call

don't reflect the voices of the san francisco community at large. i encourage voting what is best for san francisco not what a tiny but vocal minority. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please p. you'll have two minutes. >> good evening. i'm calling in to support the mou and oppose the resolution. i'm dumb founded that anyone who thinks a hospital is not a community benefit. we look at a house and say that houses people who are sick even though i'm may not be sick right now. it was the height of privilege and entitlement including wealthy neighbors and developers

who created a stake community group to look at a hospital to say what's in it for me and what's my benefit. i like public housing bup only build it in the bay view. it's only public housing when it's not near your own mansion. this is a public hospital and housing. the uc sf has extra money they should spend it on more hospital beds. people bragging on putting a limit on house inning the seventies should also be ashamed.

there are fewer icu beds. how much better would the city be if we had one hundred more hospital beds. we can't let -- we need a hospital. we need housing. don't stand in the way. it should be approved by the board of supervisors an the region. >> thank you very much. call for calling. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> hi. i'm a tenant rights advocate for the last 11 years. i am not a home owner, i'm a renter. i will never be a home owner.

i did have some comments to prepare in the last four or so hours that i've been waiting. i do want to address some of the misinformation being spread or -- how do i put it? these yuppies talking about how this giant private for profit entity or seme private does not owe the public some pay back or that somehow we're asking for uc sf to come save to us have enough housing. no we're asking uc sf to not cause further problems and further gentrification. greater pollution and congestion. that's not much to ask.

review a huge report is so small. the people calling in support of this giant expansion are concerned about delays, should be concerned about the lawsuits coming down unless they come to a available agreement that will not cause so much harm to us. thank you. >> thank you so much for those on hold, please continue to hold. this will indicate you've been unmuted and may begin your comments. next speaker, please. >> good a supervisors. i'm a district seven resident and the chief administrative officer at uc sf.

i look forward to seeing all the hard work you do for district seven. ive support the campus plan and urge the supervisors to support these updates without drai. delay.i think it's important foe residents of the city to recognize this partnership. they've played a role since the 1800s. it supported local businesses and provided countless job opportunities. when the next maijon emergency happens, the residents of the city can all be cared for. they have not done enough to get input from the communeility is community is nottrue.

it's been in depth and there's an ideas report. multiple community surveys. i worry it will never be enough . the environmental impact was released today and is available for everyone to review. taking measures such as having a qualified biologist on site to ensure the birds and trees are protected. additional uc sf invested 20 million for improvements. increased pedestrian safety. they have to find a safe place to be dropped off for their

appointments. this new program will provide a safe overpass for patients. in order for uc sf to continue providing critical care, you must address the challenges we are facing in san francisco. i urge you to approve this legislation and move forward without delay. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> good evening supervisors. i'm a resident of district two. i'm on the interface council. i'm calling in support of uc sf campus plan.

the delays that pose a public health risk. we don't know when the next -- will take place. we're relying on government officials to be prepared and keep us safe. while if you're work yid about worried aboutthe placement of m. we're worried about the lives of our family members. i urge you to support uc sf plan and mou without any further delay, thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> hi. my name is cliff. i am a stone's throw away from the mission bay campus. it's a great facility to have in our neighborhood. uc sf has been a great neighbor here. i believe people in parn ass us. rather than let the hospital expand in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city.

i don't think that's something the board of supervisors should be supporting in this day in age. i'm speaking for myself as well as the san francisco gas lighters. i want to respond to someone who implied he spoke on behalf of the transit riders when concerned about extra cars. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> i just have one thing to say. it's not that hard -- like, it's a hospital and over two thousand affordable units. i know you guys are half asleep

because we've been on hold for a very long time. i don't understand why there's any reason to delay a hospital and over two thousand units of affordable housing. i'm eighteen years old. i'm be the person inherenting ig this. the only time we will survive the climate crisis is with housing. we need to start densifying.

>> i do not think a hospital is an excellent provider of housing. nor do i think it should be responsible for housing. i don't think it should be expected to solve every problem in our city. this setting of amber over the entire city over the last forty years, it isn't successful, function, or acceptable. it's distopian. for a small group of people out side gains without having to

make any property upgrades. i'm sorry but the concerns of the people are greater than that. the concerns of the people are to have a hospital. i hear your concerns. what i hear from people is a lack of trust. it has been abused thoroughly and extensive that it has caused a distopian city. that loss of trust has people calling in to say, hey, this isn't a functional behavior. me too. this isn't a functional behavior. you are untrust worthy with that privilege. the reason you are untrust worthy is how badly it has prevented anything from occurring for forty years.

>> i'm calling to oppose the resolution and -- my father has severe parkinson's disease and has been treated mult p.m. e times at uc sf.

some on this call says there has not been community involvement. there has been community involvement for more than two years. poles indicate like most people know p it. we heard there are not enough community benefits. there are huge community benefits. affordable housing, transit, open space, improved and safer traffic flow. i don't know what more people want. as it it will totally revitalize our neighborhood. i spent more time than ever walking the streets of the neighborhood. i firmly believe that more people should get to live here. we need more housing. it will add that house to go the area. these delays are strangling the

city on our neighborhood. i urge you to move this project along without delay. >> next speaker. >> hi. i'm uc sf patient calling to oppose the resolution. i would like to start by talk being the neighborhood i love. my dad grew up in the neighborhood too. my grandmother both long time community organizers and activists. it's just as much a part of mify

grandmother's story. i also would like to share a little bit about how it helped me personally. i was diagnosed with a rare auto immune disease. there weren't very many pediatric surgeons would could treat my illness. my parents were able to find one just up the street. it was a tremendous blessing to invest in uc sf because i was tiebl get the care i needed in my own backyard. i think our city owes it to kids like me to have access to the specialists and cutting edge care they deserve.

thank you so much for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> hello, caller. you are on the line and unmuted. >> hello. my name is netty gardener. the three hundred foot high new hospital will cause shadows over gold gate park, the avenues and coal valley. it is too high. i urge the city and the board of regents -- i hope they will not rush and pass the project

through. please slow down and consider the impact and find some alternatives. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is alen. i'm very familiar with the neighborhood and the areas surrounding our campus. we're very supportive of the parnassus heights plan. the majority of my time has been dealing with aged infrastructure issues such as crumbling pipes and lack of infrastructure and equipment that prevents us from

attracting the best and brightest talent. this is why we need a new hospital. it's not an option to keep repairing and replacing. the pilling will not meet code in 2030. please do not delay this critical project. >> thank you for calling. next speaker, please. >> hi supervisors. i'm born and raised in san francisco. i'm a currently a resident of district four. i'm calling to delay the expansion. there's no commitment to -- not a big ask that it's

affordable to the people who work there. this isn't saying the project shouldn't happen or changing the character of the neighborhood. it's about basic equity for the city. i -- it puts into question every promise they made to the city. please delay this approval until these and other concerns have been addressed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. you've been unmuted and may dpin. begin. >> i'm calling in to support the

parnassus campus plan. it creates jobs not only from the pandemic but for public health and access to care. the parnassus campus we provide a world class hospital in the city. construction jobs with goal of 30% local hiring for local, small, and diverse businesses. uc sf is committed to building over a thousand housing units and ensuring 40% are affordable

to its work force. we still remain in a housing crisis. on behalf of the chamber please don't delay this progeny further. for the health of our residents. thank you for your time. >> thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> i live in district five. the issue is exactly what is wrong with san francisco. i support the hospital. i don't think we can expect the hospital to do urban planning. that's a serious mistake. it's up to the supervisors to make a plan for public goods.

asking a hospital to do these things is doomed to failure. that is why so many people will never be disappointed because we're asking a hospital to have a planning department. it should be the city that tries to alleviate the housing shortage . the city has the power to make room for more homes. they are refusing to do so. (please stand by)

>> i want everyone here to stop and think about where you are now. you probably working from home.

we should be very happy that housing that ucsf is building. i want to see us work together like ucsf. please support ucsf without delay. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> i was born and raised in san francisco. i live in district 8. i'm calling mostly because of the e.i.r. elements of this hearing. i believe that there needs to be more time for not just the board but to review such things. also the transportation aspect of this. the transportation aspect, $20 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the impact that it's going to be had by this development. unless the housing to jobs ratio

is one to one, you can expect that people will be coming from relative distance other parts of the city and bay area to this location. i believe that the plan should include a mailbox underneath the structure that will be used for future underground whether it's bart or muni metro station. $20 million is less than a tenth of what a b.r.t. project would cost. less than 1% central subway. i'm doing my math. but still it's a drop in the bucket. it's not nearly enough of a commitment long-term impact that

transportation has in that area. there should be more time to review the e.i.r. and to have input on that element of the plan. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker. >> hello, my name is miguel. i'm a native born and raised san sanfranciscan i'm appalled we're having this conversation. it's ridiculous that a group of people who live nearby think that this hospital is only for them. this is a regional resource for not our community in san francisco but all over the place. the fact that we're hearing who never heard before talk about affordable housing. let me get this straight. we've been in the mission fighting for affordable housing and other parts of the city, most of the people have been speaking up has been against

that. i think it's wrong that all of a-- when we hear earlier about promises broken, i was on the committee for the city of san francisco on the rebuild of san francisco general. i was involved in the mission bay expansion there. ucsf kept all its promises and some. by being a place of emergency especially people of color, low income and homeless people that need it the most. imagine if we have an earthquake. it's not when or if, it's when we're going to have it. this hospital will not be ready. in less than a week, we're hearing talk about let's delay. delay what? let's just get this going. everyday we delay, it's a hospital that's not being built. it's a service that's not being provided to community people, people who need it.

i'm sorry for the folks that all of a sudden are now woke about affordable housing, i hope you stay woke when we really need you to begin to build housing on the west side. we would appreciate your support then. i ask that we don't delay this and good paying new jobs are at stake. we don't need a delay. let's just get it over with and start the construction. get this hospital rebuilt and provide some world-class service. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening, this is tamara allison calling in opposition to this resolution and in strong support of the parnassus plan with no delay. i written and reviewed the work and enjoyed the playground.

i experienced the other rights of passage trying to define affordable housing and child care. that is exactly why i'm such a strong advocate of cchp. it's a win-win for san francisco. i'm excited about the community benefit package that maintains future reserves, builds new housing. i'm happy about the community benefits and generally relieved about the approval of this plan. i want to talk about the consequences of delay or doing nothing which will threaten the viability of the parnassus campus to scientific discovery. for example, we have grants to

do research to find new drugs to prevent arthritis. we can't do this work because parnassus research facility is outdated. we're so passionate to do this work. the only option is a patchwork effort that's so expensive that it's impossible. this issue is directly responsible for my colleagues to conduct research. many are waiting on them to make choices to conduct their work. every delay pushes progress down the road, cost more money and discourages investigators who are giving it their all to find cures. thank you. >> for those on hold, please continue to hold until the

system indicates you have been unmuted. >> this is doug anderson. i'm a 20-year neighbor at e.i.r. my children were born on parnassus. we look upon the campus everyday. i'm calling in strong support of delaying or terminating any resolution that would delay this project in full support of accelerating this project at every corner. as this project has been in planning for years, i appreciate community engagement, thoughtfulness and investment. at least one of the committee members is a neighbor and should not be surprised that the direction being pursued. m.o.u. has been negotiated in good faith and even more than adequate time line. any frame that it's being rushed

and marginalizing the months by community members and ucsf. this project is a lifeline. nobody can assume health or economy will rebound for many years. i have more housing units than any other project currently being proposed. it will boost local economy spending with many neighborhood businesses closed. it will boost transit use when commutes are not even known to come back. last but not least, improve access to healthcare in the community, the broader region and advance it globally. optics of this project is being skewed for political gain.

if we want to move forward of this project, ucsf, they've come to the take of table with solution. it's up to the supervisor to come up with solutions. they should move forward as fast as possible. thank you. >> thank you for calling. next speaker please. you'll have two minutes. >> hi, this is kristen veronese. i'm a resident of the -- i'm also a small business owner an hade street. i'm calling in today as the president of the haddish

merchant association to support today's resolution. it was only this past week that the m.o.u. was shared with us by a neighbor that -- we were surprised to learn that there is included in this m.o.u. program for local business partnership and collaboration. it's specifically calls out merchants. i know that when we last two years, the merchant has worked with supervisor to open it as a temporary parking lot while many of the parking spaces along the street were businesses with

construction. it was an observation that half of the parking lots were used by ucsf, by students and faculty and employees. you know there's a direct impact by the ucsf campus on the commercial corridor. i was surprised to learn that there has been two-year long process. i never received any contact or outreach for anyone to participate in the meetings and would have been happy to provide input and feedback from the merchant perspective. >> clerk: next speaker please.

>> i want to say that i've been living in san francisco for 25 years. i was forced to move out under threat and eviction. that was two years ago. it was very hard for us to find housing on the west side of san francisco. we ended up in the richmond district which is great. i want to add that i'm very fond of the team at ucsf. i think they do great work. my son was born at ucsf. throughout all of that, it's one thing to go to a hospital and get treatment but it's another to go to a teaching hospital and have scores of residents helping with the process and procedure to get you through those

difficult medical treatments. we can't do more to make the teaching facility and people who live there or need to find places to live to support them and where they're going to be living and working and walking to work. it will be a big mistake. i support the m.o.u. i oppose the resolution to delay this project further. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker. >> hello everybody. good evening to the supervisors. i'm a resident of district 8. i'm calling in support of ucsf parnassus campus plan and m.o.u. i want to provide different

perspective and faculty at ucsf. i lead a research program at the parnassus campus. we study biology and treatment of pancreatic cancer. in california there's 6000 cases new cases of pancreatic cancer. this is a deadly disease that claims the lives of our love ones. our neighbors calling family and friends and during this past year, ruth bader ginsburg, congressman john lewis and alex trebek. to do the research must work in close collaboration with surgeons who see patients to exchange knowledge with our latest findings and breakthroughs. this is made possible about the the unique close collaboration at the parnassus campus that is developed over decade. that cannot be easy replicated

elsewhere. we still have to continue to overcome. we lack critical infrastructure, equipment, facilities, lab spaces are outdated and crumbling. these are the conditions you are asking us to continue to work in. these conditions prevent us from doing our best work and our ability to translate our newest places in lab. in order to continue to serve our community, and conduct cutting edge research, we need to modernize obsolete facilities and labs to current standards. please consider the thousands of patients diverted into the hospital beds and the patients currently in the hospital who stand to benefit from future breakthroughs. >> clerk: next speaker please.

hello caller, you are on the line. >> hello. you are unmuted now and you are on the line for public comment. >> okay. i'm at cathedral hill. i was on the house floor,

community coalition for the eight years to create the community agreement for the five hospital institution master plan. i want to say that, the plan that we ended up with at the end was so much better than the one that was originally proposed. instead of building one hospital, we built two hospitals. i really want to support supervisor peskin's resolution to take more time to get real true community engagement on this and get a chance to come up with a plan for both the community and ucsf and the patient and residents of san francisco can support. thank you very much. >> next speaker please.

>> good evening supervisors and welcome. my name sarah ogilvy. [indiscernible] >> clerk: caller, we have seem to have lost your audio. [indiscernible]

>> please, supervisors, consider ucsf need to expand and revitalize its hospital, its campus and its future with the same urgency that ucsf considered my husband's heart diagnosed with afib a condition that affects millions of people in the u.s. many of come can benefit from the world-class care that ucsf provides. let's give ucsf more chance to treat my husband and not turn them away. please, don't let them turn away parents any longer than they have to. please approve this project and let it move forward without delay. thank you for your urgent

consideration. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> hi. i'm calling from district 1. although, i am definitely all in favor of the hospital expansion, i'm calling in support of peskin's wants to delay the m.o.u. the reason being, i think the $19 million proposed is really not in substantial enough at all. also, there's nothing that says anything about the additional -- [indiscernible] anything like this is going to have such an impact.

i urge more community involvement collaboration. >> next speaker please. >> welcome to the board supervisor melgar. i'm here to represent the affordable housing alliance. since 1981, we have been fighting to protect renters and build and preserve affordable housing in san francisco. last year we passed proposition e. we need toe create a balance between jobs and housing. any developer provided enough affordable housing to the new jobs, they would automatically be approved under prop m. my concern about the ucsf

expansion plan, there's an adequate jobs housing balance. ucsf studies indicate their expansion will bring up to 5000 new jobs to san francisco but that's great if there's a place for thome live. at this point, not only is there not enough housing for those new workers but the timing of the housing will become decades after the jobs will be created. it will put more pressure on existing housing, create more housing shortages and inevitably cause evictions. we like to see minimum jobs housing balance plan with ucsf building enough employee housing for new employees and students -- and building it in a timely manner. thank you. >> good evening supervisors.

this is peter cohen. i wanted to pick up from my colleague's comments earlier. what we really want to emphasize is the need to thoroughly understand the housing need for the workforce group from this project. i think mr. marte explained why that's essential. next step doing that will be for the city to use the methodology to drill down into those number and analyze what that job is and come up with the housing program that mirrors that need. the methodology is at the department fingertips. we want to remind you and all your colleagues on the board about this time last year, the board adopted legislation requiring the planning

department to do a job analysis on an annual basis as well as an analysis on a case by case basis. the methodology has not been developed. it will be useful now to help establish how the city goes about doing these analysis. not just the ucsf development but to make sure we're housing our workforce growth. i wanted to encourage you folks to look at this both from the specific level but at the policy level. this is and should be a new standard practice of how we can get through some of the unknowns what housing do we need and for whom. this is an opportunity to have not just a world-class project but getting good howing policy. thank you. >> next speaker please.

hello caller. next caller please. >> hi. i'm evan. i live in district 1. i'm here in support of ucsf parnassus plan. please don't delay this further. >> thank you so much. next speaker please. we have 14 in the queue. >> good evening. my name is lisa audrey.

i am a long time resident of district 5. i think it's really unfair and ridiculous that there are people commenting here saying that anyone who supports supervisor peskin's resolution to slow down this process with so many unresolved, really critical issues, that's just a false argument. it's really does. what this is about, ucsf, are trying to rush this through and they have a history of breaking the rules. they've done it. anyone who read up on this knows.

here they go again. another really interesting number, when you talk the component of this and anyone so excited that ucsf offered to contribute $20 million. it's unfortunate. there's too many unsolved really critical issues in the m.o.u. they need to deal with affordable housing, to the workforce. to deal with the impact that will have on our environment and on our local transit.

none of these questions have been answered. thank you. i support supervisor peskin. >> good evening supervisors. this is steve, district 7 resident. i like to welcome myrna melgar. you should all support the project and reject the resolution being propose to delay this project. i'm a district 7 resident. i think that really not the best project. we need to think of the power structures that are opposing.

do we want to either hold them to the homeowners of the city or do we want to change and break that structure. i fully support building more housing. to propose it in the bayview -- [indiscernible]. i like to comment on a previous caller who was saying that we should think about the jobs and housing balance. i totally agree. let's approve. we need to approve the projects that's coming out. or any -- these are all great. i would love to see it approved. please support this project and many mores like it.

>> next speaker please. >> hello. my name is joel. i'm a resident of district 5. i think that we need more housing and we need to support the ucsf community. i think because the few homeowner who live in the area who does not want this, to go around the surrounding area is ridiculous. first of all, -- [indiscernible]. i oppose it. >> thank you.

>> good evening. i'm emily shell i live in district 5. i'm a direct neighbor of the parnassus project. i oppose the resolution to delay the parnassus project. i like so many others, it's important for us to be good neighbor to ucsf. especially now when ucsf has been working tirelessly to keep the san francisco community alive all while doing community outreach which i have seen many times. i believe this could be extended even when the pandemic is no longer a threat. my former neighbor works as a nurse at ucsf. she allowed her to work, walk to

work everyday. now she faces two hour compute by car where she has to put in long hours to look out for covid patients. housing close to one workplace should not be a luxury reserve and those with a six-figure salary to afford it. it will improve our struggling infrastructure and provide new jobs our city so desperately need now in the post pandemic era. thank you. >> next speaker please. we have 55 listeners and 14 in the queue.

>> i believe the ucsf campus need to be updated and expanded. i believe that some of the prohousing proponents have been blind that the majority of ucsf workers make $50,000 to $60,000 a year. which is currently out of reach in the current housing plan. they seem not to understand this 30-year housing proposal can be improved. i don't see this resolution as a resolution to delay the 30-year project. i i think this is a call for further negotiations. i agree with supervisor preston and supervisor melgar, that agree with their calls to continue negotiating the m.o.u.

i feel a golden opportunity obring in expertise from labor and affordable housing to understand what the housing income mix. understand the break even constraints. this is a 30-year plan. let's work through this instead of either enabling racist on it's or in cases some of the opponents overlooking industrial process. let's have a resource that we can work with for the next 30 years. >> clerk: next speaker. >> i live in district 7. i'm calling to strongly support

ucsf's expansion. my wife is pregnant with our first child. she lives close to ucsf. i'm worried ucsf won't be around for our kids. thank you so much for your time. >> clerk: next speaker please. you'll have two minutes.

>> sorry. i'm a resident of district 2. two of my cousins were born at ucsf. i think it's ridiculous parking over human lives and how this over pandemic. i ask that you please move forward with this project and look towards building more housing on the west side of san francisco. thank you. >> we have 53 listeners with 11 in the queue. next speaker. >> good evening supervisors, cory smith on behalf of the

housing action coalition. we are in support of the ucsf proposal. we think it's a win-win-win with new jobs, new homes and improve transit. transitions have sent in a -- 85% of residents live in san francisco, 32% of the signers indicated that they live in either -- we all think that our healthcare workers in the middle of this health pandemic are

heroes and building homes for them seem absolutely appropriate.

>> the second reason that i'm calling, i support further negotiations that could result in additional affordable housing and additional transit investment. the m.o.u. isn't quite there yet and therefore more negotiations. i do think as a city, can take an opportunity to get more affordable housing and better transit project and we should take it. for 10,000 workers making $70,000 a year or under. this is public data. i support the earlier caller calling on behalf of workers asking for additional affordable housing. the affordability level of the project, 120%, making $107,000 a

year will leave out lot of ucsf workers. it will take decades to make. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker please. we have 61 listeners and 9 in the queue. >> hello. i'm a resident of san francisco for ten years. i'm calling because i would like to support the resolution to continue negotiating the m.o.u. i want to address couple of previous commenters on this comment. if the other commenters on this

call support building more housing, why aren't they support the more condo units. there's plenty of housing that house all homeless and house many low income units. with regards to this specific project, calling everybody who's opposed to the project is wealthy incomes i oppose moved this project to the bayview neighborhood. this project shouldn't move forward at the ucsf parnassus campus. 44% is pitiful. major of staff at ucsf makes far less than that.

only 40% affordable housing is pitiful. this plan much more deeply affordable. ucsf is a rich institution that should give back to its community. i support preston's resolution to continue negotiating. the plan must be improved before it is approved. >> next speaker please. >> hi thank you supervisor peskin and preston for the opportunity to comment on this. i've been -- i live in -- beyond the benefits of this project,

i'm really want to see ucsf expand itself. >> i think the party gone above and beyond what they should be responsible for. particularly with regards to investing in transit, invest in new trails and more than that and issues. i think it will be unreasonable to ask both of them.

i would encourage the supervisors to really push forward and allow ucsf to continue to move on all the good work they have done for the broader community. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hello. i'm a resident of district 3. i want to support supervisor peskin resolution to delay. [indiscernible]

>> clerk: we have 60 listeners and 7 in the queue. >> good evening supervisors.

this is john. what's so disappointing about this ucsf proposal in front of you and the m.o.u. that goes with it, there's such a failure. we need so much now more than ever as we have to recover from the impacts of the covid epidemic. as we look now up and down

section of the city, 70 projects and shipyard projects. we see projects that have been approved and would provide 20,000 units of housing all with no early prospect of building that today. ucsf would be the catalyst as it was in mission bay and deliver thousands and thousands affordable market rate housing that's been approved by everybody supported by the community.

>> clerk: next speaker please. you'll have two minutes. >> hello supervisors. i live near by the parnassus campus. the housing aspect of this plan -- [indiscernible]. we look no further than ucsf

housing development. why is it vacant? charges over 3 thousands a year for workers making $40,000 a year. >> hello. >> can you hear me?

>> am i on? >> yes, you can start your comment. >> thank you. i grew up right across the street from the ucsf parnassus housing development. i'm in support of the expansion. i think the concern is really on transit. also, parking is like a big issue. the entire life there's been major issue with parking in the neighborhood. i can imagine what will be like.

transit in general is my biggest concern. this is a 30-year project. i'm definitely in favor of it generally. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good evening supervisors. i'm mike chen i'm a resident of district 2, i oppose the resolution and support the ucsf plan. i live two blocks away from ucsf van ness. being at the hospital is not annoying. it's busy. you have to recognize that hospital suspect like a really good public good. it's great that we have great hospitals.

i think san francisco has been a big leader in healthcare. i do believe that we have of housing crises. we do need to bill for lower affordability. i recognize supervisor peskin's action to rezone the area around ucsf parnassus to revitalize low income housing thank you very

much. >> clerk: next speaker please. you'll have two minutes. >> my name is nathan. i live in district 1. i'm just calling to voice my opposition to the resolution to delay. i think we need to take a step back for a second and realize that really this is a seismic upgrade project. the existing hospital will not be useable in 2030. god forbid if something happens before that. the arguments around the

community good that are bonuses that we should be thankful for. i agree that we need more affordable housing on the west side, badly needed. the idea of cramming this into a single project on the ucsf campus is not reasonable. we knee to get this project done. the people that called in ask for delay after delay, do not understand how hospital is built. it is a lengthy process. it is a highly technical and complicated building. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. you'll have two minutes. >> hi, i'm a tenant and resident of district 5. i live near the hospital.

i'm really disturbed by the comments today. i definitely support supervisor trying to negotiate more affordable housing, lower a.m.i. if you been doing this for a while, you know who's who. we all hear the same voices and the same name. i wondering all the people who are against this, because of the expanding nature of the hospital where are they? tough to look at so much housing. there's going to be need for more housing from ucsf that ucsf itself cannot fulfill. what i haven't seen is calls to have affordable housing built on the west side.

proposition legalized affordable housing. this is not going to be successful. what we're talking about s making ucsf victim of culture war. it's absolutely ridiculous. especially neighborhood groups that have coyed, should be ashamed themselves. i support finding ways to find more affordability to this project.

>> hi. i have been a resident district 7 years, currently district 6 resident. i'm strongly in system of the ucsf. during the fire season and taking care of patients with covid during overnight cold, there was no ventilation. another issue that has come up throughout my time as a medical student and a resident at ucsf is the issue of the community. we travel from mission bay, parnassus and the county

hospital as well as the v.a. over near ocean beach and to think about adding another sight to that is extremely disruptive to patient care. >> clerk:two in the queue. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, i live in district 1. i have two kids here and we absolutely need to try to push this through, or actually not delay it, to change my language here. mainly because there's so much pressure on this project because we are not building any housing on the west side. it's absolutely ridiculous. the other piece that is a little

bit troubling is this is in a lower-income neighborhood. and the power workers would be coming out and delaying this, quite frankly, on the horn with this. long story made short, thank you for holding this hearing and, please, no delays. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name is william and i'm a resident of district 5. and i want to express my strong opposition to supervisor preston's proposal to delay this project. i just don't understand why we are expecting ucsf to be a silver bullet for all of our problems. i think that if the supervisors cared so much about housing and transit they wouldn't be trying to get ucsf to solve all of our problems. instead, they would approve many

of the other housing projects they are currently delaying over and over again. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hi, my name is sachan and i now live in district 7, just a few blocks from the parnassus campus with my wife and two daughters. i'm with a large coalition of residents who advocate for similar housing and other development in the city. i strongly support the expansion and i oppose the resolution to delay the project. we're really, really lucky that ucsf is making such a large commitment and investment in our city, especially in times like these. i believe that the opposition is shortsighted and selfish. we need to think about the long-term growth. my two daughters were born at mission bay and everyone in my family is a patient and we see ucsf staff supporting our local

businesses in the inner sunset. i'm going to live in district 7 forever, so i'm really excited and we'll have a new well kept hospital on the westside. so when i get sick or somebody in my family gets sick, we'll have this great hospital to go to. in addition, i think that ucsf is going above and beyond and we have a housing crisis, and the project will add over 1,000 new housing units. and muni is in trouble. the n train is not running and the 6 bus is dead completely. people in golden gate heights they on this bus. and so we need it there and ucsf will make that investment. and since covid we know now how critical open spaces are and i'm super excited about the golden gate park and the future of the bike lanes. so all of these investments, you know, they're going to create jobs, they're going to make our streets safer and our local businesses are going to thrive. so i'm super excited what this will do for my neighborhood and going to create this environment

for my daughters to grow up in. and one of the co-sponsors supporting this project, i want to mention that we're now up to 1,100 investigates on that petition. so we're going to show that there's support for this project and the opposition is a very vocal minority of the same people who call in and over and over and opposing every single project. >> clerk: thank you so much. we have 41 listeners with four in the queue. next speaker. >> caller: hello, my name is patrick chalmer and i live nearby for more than two years. and i fully support this project and i wantedded it to have it move forward without more delay. i want to thank the chancellor for speaking today, almost five hours ago. ucsf has been an awesome partner and i trust that the chancellor and ucsf will hold up their part of the m.o.u. and it's frustrating that the supervisors preston and peskin are trying to delay this project, especially during the

pandemic, when the building is at risk from the earthquake. and ucsf has delayed this by two months to accommodate the supervisors' -- >> we haven't voted, don't say that. that's not true. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor. >> caller: thank you for the comment. i wanted to point out something else, i received an email, and unsolicited, which i believe is an illegal use, (indiscernible) and misinformation about the project, including how many affordable units there are. there are actually 632 affordable units and they are created, not 134. and claims about open space reductions which is not true. there won't be open space reductions. i'm so proud that ucsf is building this world-class facility in the hospital and the new open space. additional much-needed housing and having muni makes me proud

of san francisco and ucsf. we should build more housing for people of all incomes in this area and i support peskin and preston changing the zoning to have apartment buildings to provide homes for people, including people who work at ucsf. and this project should move forward without further delay, and i would ask that supervisor peskin not respond to a public commenter like that in real-time again. it's against the rules of the board. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. we have four in queue again. and our next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, this is ed liard, i'm a 35-year resident of district 5. and i would like to support supervisor preston's resolution urging the regents to delay their consideration of this

project until the march meeting. to point out that this resolution doesn't delay the project, it delays their consideration of it. and i listened to chancellor haugood talking about the cascading series of events and it wasn't very convincing. i don't know why the project would be delayed. it's a 30-year project. but i would say that releasing the d.a.r. with 5,000 pages is a cause in itself to ask for a delay for consideration. and also to point out that i love ucsf, i'm a patient, i'm a donor. i love having them in the neighborhood. and just because i want them to consider this plan a little more fully, doesn't mean that i oppose it. as a matter of fact, the biggest delay in the project has been ucsf itself, because they had a

2014 plan which would have done most of the things contained in the current plan and also would have been within the space cap that they agreed to that would be permanent in 1976. that's all i have. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> caller: so let's consider the proposal and the capabilities of the people that are putting it on the table. so coming from supervisor preston who found this which accomplished zero new units of affordable housing. and now it's an organization that exclusively shares these accomplishments and opposes the small development for safety reasons on facebook. (indiscernible) analyzed parts of the zoning project for equity analysis next week and we'll see

what incredible results are in store. similarly, the super majority last year led by amy rezoned a bunch of impractical lots for affordable housing. i'm not aware of any projects actually proposed on them. and it's people who claim they will unite a bunch of disjointed opposition, with a variety of objections, to the lack of outreach to the transit, to jobs and housing ratio, and the medical care, and to the distribution of the housing that is being produced. all of the disjointed opposition to agree on a new fair allocation to tens of hundreds of millions of benefits extracting from a public institution. we should be honest and say that we need half a year or more to get on the same page and to present the magnitude -- the correct magnitude of the bill to the public. thanks. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please.

>> caller: hi, everybody. my name is sarah lux, and i'm an associate professor, and i read a research lab and teach within the graduate programs. i do take the ucsf shuttle and public transport to town every other day with everybody else. i'm really looking forward to this becoming much better really soon, as i'm sure that all of the patients and the families are as well. i'm in great support of the ucsf plan and i hope that it occurs quickly. these changes are critical to the needs of the parnassus campus and will have a beneficial impact on research and hospital care. and the hospital and research centers at ucsf are interlocked. the hospital is outstanding. due in part to thests of research. and the research is the best in the world because of the contribution of our hospital staff. and we interact daily with the

best clinicians in the country who treat cancer. however, we perform this work with one hand tied behind our backs. this is due to the sub-standard infrastructure, equipment and the facilities that are available. we are doing our best to have research and clinical breakthroughs in a timely manner, but this severely hampered by what our campus offers us and what it offers you. there's a dire need to modernize. we're using the oldest will infrastructure that i have ever seen in the united states. yes, our patients are currently receiving the best care and treatment because that is what we do. experimental are equip developiw researchers. and we can't deliver without being able to do so. we want to have the gatekeepers of our population's health and well-being and to provide the exceptional nurses and doctors

and scientists of tomorrow. let's face it, we need to move forward with this project. it's going to change the city forever in the best possible way. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, my name is adam catching, i'm a neighbor of district 5 and as well as a student at ucsf. and i call in support of ucsf parnassus campus plan. i have been coming to ucsf as a patient in the cardiovascular unit since my earliest memories and i can remember going to parnassus. it hasn't really changed since i was there in the early 1990s. there's a great amount of world-class research that is in the medical procedures that can only be done at ucsf. they are in deep desperate need of revitalization.

this plan allows that to happen, and on top of that allows for 1,000 houses to be provided, some of which will be provided for students like myself who have a very meager pay or to have pay incredill student loans and living in san francisco it's not possible, if not for the affordable housing that ucsf provides. and in a housing crisis like now, this is needed on top of the research facilities that are needed. and where we turn basic science into vaccines like the phase two clinical trial of polio vaccine that is right now in development. i would say that delaying this critical project would -- would be unwise during a pandemic and really unwise during a housing crisis. so i strongly urge that there's

no further delay in allowing this to go to the regents and to allow this work to begin. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. my name is kimberly and i'm a d5 resident right down the hill from ucsf. i'm calling to support this m.o.u. as is, and ask board to oppose the measure to delay any further. i have no financial interests. i'm speaking from my own convictions. from what i understand this is a california state project. the city has no direct control over it. and i also understand that the hospital is almost always at capacity. is at risk to earthquakes. and that the state is still responsible for the environmental checks that i have heard other residents express concern over. and supervisors, given all of this, i'm disappointed that we're spending city resources discussing this right now. and the supervisors should

improve things they can actually impact, instead of involving themselves in an issue that is not technically theirs. and the previous caller said it well, these are all petty things. thank you, i yield my time. >> clerk: thanks for calling. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. calvin welsh. i would like to point out to the board that the 1987 m.o.u. was agreed to between the city and county and ucsf. and ucsf last year violated that m.o.u., by abgreating a 45-year-old agreement on a space limit that was discussed by no one in the community.

and it seems that the proposal of supervisor preston is a rational way to proceed in approving a project that is good for the city and the community. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i am confirming with james, and he has noted that was the last caller, madam chair. >> thank you, madam clerk. so with that public comment is now closed on this item. and we will open it up for comment and question -- further questions from my colleagues. i don't see any -- okay, supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar, and, yeah, i do have additional questions and things they wanted to nail down and get clarity on on the record. and then i also do have an amendment after all questions are answered that i circulated

previously. so, just a few things following all of the public comment and the presentations before. first off, on the affordable housing, and i think that this is probably a question for -- through the chair to mr. switzky, i want to talk about the affordable housing commitment that is in the m.o.u., what the commitment is and what it isn't. the chancellor and some of the public commenters have said that the m.o.u. will build 1,263 new net units. 40% of which will be affordable as per the agreement. and i don't think that they're intentionally misstating it, but i think this is not accurate. and i want to just get this on the record. there is not a requirement that of the 1,263 net new units that

are created in the m.o.u., that 40% of those are affordable. or do i have that wrong? >> no, you don't. planning staff. you are correct. the commitments, they are separate, and it is a bit confusing. just to say it in one sentence because it's two separate concepts. there are -- the housing requirement is 1,263 net new units beyond what existed in the portfolio as of january 1st. and the affordable housing commitment is separate and it relates to their entire housing portfolio which includes the existing units and the new units that will be created and by 2050, 40% of their entire portfolio, which would be at that point estimated at 1,008 units. that would be the 40%. would have to be at the

affordable rates. and so, yes, so, actually 1,000 units would be more than 40% of the new units because the new units is just 1,260. >> but looking for a second at the new units here, there's actually no requirement that any of those are affordable, right? they could use other parts of their portfolio and they also of the 1,008 units that are to be affordable, they can see out or pursue some of these other options on 200 of those units. so we have 808 units basically that -- that they would have to have some kind of affordability. and we'll talk in a minute about the affordability levels. but i just want to be clear -- it is entirely conceivable that they could build this and not build a single unit of affordable housing in chair melgar's district or my district, right? they could build all of this

housing on this beautiful hill with sweeping views of golden gate park and golden gate bridge and for those who can afford market rate housing and satisfy all of their affordable housing obligations -- again, regardless whether we think that those obligations are deep enough and so forth -- they could satisfy all of that through housing at mission bay, or other parts of the city. there's nothing in this agreement that requires them to actually create a single unit of affordable housing on the parnassus campus, right? >> you are correct, that the m.o.u. doesn't strictly require that. i think that they would want to chime in and say how likely that is, given what their intentions are. i think that it's probably unlikely that would play out entirely that way, but it is theoretically possible. >> thank you. i just wanted -- you know,

there's what is likely and what people are intending and then there's the m.o.u. that is supposed to be the statement of intent. so i just want to say that is a big concern to me that we don't have actual commitments of minimum amounts of affordable housing that will be built on-site as part of this parnassus expansion. you know, i also just pivoting to the a.m.i. levels here for a second, the comments from the ask me representative who called and some of the affordable housing experts around the a.m.i. levels here -- i think are worthy of just making sure that we're all clear. when -- when an agreement says that a certain number of units will be up to 90% of a.m.i., it would be affordable to people up to 90% of a.m.i., or up to 120%

of a.m.i., right -- in theory that means they could rent those units to someone at 50% of a.m.i. or at 90% or 50% or 120%. but i think that we all need to understand that as a practical matter, even for an affordable housing provider, there's an enormous financial incentive to rent to the person at the top end of what they're allowed to rent to. because the rent is a percentage of income. and so if they rent to someone who has 120% a.m.i. income, they're going to get double the rent as if they rent to someone who is at 60% a.m.i. so with that reality, i'm very concerned and do not understand why there are not some bands or tiers here to ensure that the hospitality -- the service worker who may be earning 50%,

60% of a.m.i. has actually a shot at some of these units. so through the chair to either mr. buckley or mr. switzky, can you explain why the decision -- >> supervisor, supervisor, sorry. i'll take the prerogative because my office -- me personally have worked on this issue quite a bit and i'm frustrated that it didn't make it on to the presentation of the planning department. and, you know, it's part of the issue all together that, you know, is moving so fast. and so mr. buckley, can you please talk about this issue? >> yes. at the chair's request, ucsf has added language that would create bands of affordability, between 60% and 90% on the lower end of the rental housing spectrum. and also between 90% and 120% as

well on the more moderate end. we received those late last night and i have provided them to your offices this morning. and i apologize, i wish that it was in there faster but it is in there now. >> i'm sorry, can you please adm me came attached to a request for a wage analysis of the -- you know, the salaries and the wages at ucsf. can you talk a little bit about how those bands relate to the wage analysis, please. >> yeah, so we looked at both their anchor institute data and we also looked and had data provided from ucsf. so we -- the bands i think appropriately weren't able to capture much greater levels of affordability amongst their staff. i could pull up the numbers if you give me a few minutes or

maybe josh switzky may have them more readily handy. but the idea is that depending on, you know, the steps and the wage scale, this would be able to capture, for example, a janitorial staff who has been on the job for probably a couple years. so that would be captured in this kind of deeper band of affordability. >> correct me if i'm wrong, but the way that it's worded is by household and not by employee, right? so if you have folks who are at even lower wage, you count their income and, you know, that allows them to afford it. >> so, chair, i appreciate -- yes, this is based -- the affordability is based on household data and not individual salary. and that is -- allows you to be able to capture dependents and other folks who are living with those who are wage earners at ucsf. >> okay, i'm sorry, supervisor

preston. >> supervisor preston: no problem at all. and hopefully we'll all get there together. >> can i answer a question about your earlier comment? this is brian newman. >> supervisor preston: sure, sure. >> you made the comment about the theoretical possibility of all of our units being non-parnassus and i want to just clarify that real quick. so when we started these discussions with the city, the focus was on just 40% of the new units being affordable. it was ucsf and then, by the way that would have resulted in about 500 units of affordable housing. it was ucsf that put on the table to say, okay, let's talk about 40% of our entire inventory, including the new and existing, which would be 1,008 units and the m.o.u. includes language that says that the affordable units must be a mix of -- must reflect our portfolio. so must be a mix of new and existing. and it must be a combination of unit sizes and types.

so that's actually in the m.o.u. that reflects that intent, which is essentially to manage this program so that it comprises all of our sites, new and existing, and, by the way, the existing units that we have were continually renewing and redeveloping. many of the units at parnassus, frankly, are torn down and rebuilt. so i think that the intent that we put in the m.o.u. addresses some of the concerns that you might have. there's no secret agenda to put all of these units in existing. >> supervisor preston: thank you. and just to clarify though, is there a minimum number of affordable units that will be delivered under this m.o.u. at the parnassus campus? >> there's 1,008 affordable units that will be delivered as part of this plan. and a representative share will be at parnassus. but i don't have an actual number of how many will be at

parnassus. >> supervisor preston: and i'm sorry to cut you off, i know that the hour is late. i would love for us to just get to a point where we have a concrete -- there's no reason that we can't have a concrete level of, you know, at least a minimum of what's going to be delivered on the campus. it sounds like y'all may need to do some math with the portfolio. i would love to see that change in there. and i want to say that for a lot of people as part of this exercise of demanding more, not less, of affordable housing in our community. let me ask though -- just back to the bands issue and thank you chair melgar for jumping in and i appreciate your work on this to -- to get this concept in there. but -- but -- but through the chair to mr. buckley, i saw the amendments. i appreciate the -- i think -- acknowledgement of the need to sort of do this. but i actually don't understand how they operate.

like, what you've done -- i think that if i'm reading these right -- is for certain units that were targeted up to 90% of a.m.i., you've said that those units now are for 60% to 90% of a.m.i. but there's nothing in here -- there's still nothing in here. and what is missing is the lower band. what is missing is some requirement. because my read of even your amendments, which i appreciate the spirit of, still leaves the m.o.u. where all of the affordable housing can be delivered at 90% of a.m.i. or 120% of a.m.i. what is missing is the requirements, the x number of units, and chair melgar has vast experience on this exact issue and where -- so that needs to be there. so we don't need to work it out on the fly here. but there needs to be some

commitment and to the point that i think that peter cohen from was raised around how you get to those numbers and you have made a good-faith attempt to negotiate some of these. but the job housing fit analysis, it should be how you match that up to the workforce, right? but the bottom line to me -- among the other issues that we talked about -- is some level of commitment that they can't just satisfy all of this through putting 90% or 120% a.m.i. households in there. that there's a requirement to a lower band. and i don't think -- all due respect -- i don't think that the amendments do that. i think they may be trying to do that, but i don't think that they are getting there, unless i'm misreading them. >> what i would add is that those amendments were there to address the concern that all of the units could be put at, let's say, 90% a.m.i. or 120% a.m.i.

and it's to show the full range of what is possible. we also, you know, ask them to give us their unit types, to not just do, let's say, studios at a lower a.m.i. level. but to do a commensurate amount of affordable housing across their portfolio. and so the reason that we included those bands was so that you -- there would be more specificity where those levels would be. but we're not overly prescribing them, nor are we, you know, requiring ucsf to do certain -- you know, to do certain units at certain a.m.i. levels. and ucsf has figured some of that programmatic work out. but it will be reflected in the monitoring reports that will come to the planning department on an annual basis. so we will be able to see that and that will also help in terms of, you know, determining the city's comfort level in issuing

permits in the future. >> supervisor preston: so, again, i think while the intent may have been to improve, i think that the bands prescribed here make it worse. so you've basically -- they can still deliver all of their affordable housing to the highest end of those ranges. and all you've done actually is cut off the low end. i mean, all you've done is said -- so now instead of being able to do up to 90% of a.m.i. for certain units, now they can just do people who are in 60% to 90%. so you've actually just taken away the ability of the 50% a.m.i. person to qualify here. that section needs work. again, i don't want to belabor it on the record. let's target and make sure that there's some commitment in here to actually -- and i don't think that is overly prescriptive, if it's to provide to a range of housing income levels, it

shouldn't be a problem to include in an m.o.u., some minimum commitments to the lower end of these ranges. so, yeah, i would love to have further conversation in the upcoming days on that. and then just -- you know, one other thing in the time and the extensive public comment -- i was able to do a little on-the-fly legal research, as one should probably never do and i'm sure that the city attorney would tell me that i should never do that. but i need to return to this issue that supervisor peskin raised, i raised, and we discussed and the chancellor addressed about why this is not an enforceable agreement. and the chancellor represented that u.c. cannot enter into an enforceable contract with these commitments because of a constitutional economy doctrine. so that this was impossible to

do. i do not believe that that is accurate. and i just want to say i am happy to be corrected by counsel for regents. i think that is a misreading of the law. i will clarify here with the deputy city attorney on the record. but i think that there's the ucsf could absolutely enter into a binding m.o.u. they can absolutely do that. they may or may not as a matter of policy want to do that. and we can't force them to do that because of the very doctrine that the chancellor cites. because the same reason that we can't apply our zoning rules and our development fees and our taxes to ucsf. it's the same reason that we cannot require ucsf to sign a contract that is binding and enforceable. but ucsf absolutely has the right to do that, they have done

that. they have entered into other contracts with the city and county of san francisco. so, you know, i guess -- and i want to just -- if the deputy city attorney sullivan is available, just through the chair, confirm that my understanding here is right, that there's not a legal barrier if there were the will to do it -- setting aside whether it's good policy or not -- there is no legal barrier to ucsf amending this agreement to make it a binding and enforceable agreement. do i have that right? >> are you asking mr. sullivan? >> chair sullivan, city attorney's office. i am not aware of a reason why ucsf would not be able to enter into a binding contract here. i do know that you've asked them that question and i look forward

to their response. >> supervisor preston: okay, well, great. i think this is -- i won't belabor the point but i think that it's a big one. and i think that when you're trying to build trust with the community, i think that ucsf has done a lot of things to build trust with the community, including this process and engaging in it, which they don't have to do. but part of that is having enforceable agreements and let's get some clarity, you know, from u.c. council, i don't know if vice-chair newman has that information right now or we can get it after this hearing, but we need an answer on that. because if ucsf just doesn't want to make it binding, i think that is a real issue for this board and the community. why would we not have, if we're all operating in good faith in this agreement, why would we not have an enforceable agreement so that we can -- and everyone can feel better about the commitments being made. so i will -- i don't know, chair

melgar, or supervisor peskin, if you have other questions and i will move some amendments and i have very brief quotes. >> we certainly have questions and other comments, supervisor preston. so now over to supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, a lot has been said this evening. and i really want to thank both of you for your thoughtful comments. and i think that fundamentally this is the stay-wide issue, but it's also the issue in the center of the city that straddles two districts. so i really look to both of you, albeit somehow or another this issue has somehow been conflated with east side/west side housing issues and i don't really understand that, but maybe i'm

missing something. and the university of california has had over a hundred year relationship with this city, and i have relatives of my family. that had their life prolonged by a decade or decades by that institution. and i think that there are choices here that u.c. is an autonomous independent agency can choose. and i think that if i was part of the ucsf administration, i think that there are certain parts of it that don't have to be on-site. but ultimately as speakers in favor of the project and against the project said, this is not under the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors.

i actually wanted to ask mr. newman why they even care what this board of supervisors thinks. but -- but i am very pleased that this institution is working with the city and wants to do it right. but i fundamentally look to the district 7 and district 5 supervisors that as of today, this very day, are my colleagues on this committee. so i'm very interested in what the chair and vice-chair have to say. and based on that, i may have a proposal as i am known to occasionally to help people compromise. so with that, i look forward to really chair melgar's comments. >> commissioner melgar: thank

you, supervisor peskin. let me say that i support this project and i want to support the success and the sustainability of ucsf. i have friends and family who work at ucsf, and i want to make sure that it is earthquake safe. i want to make sure that it is safe in district 7, at least the hospital and the training center. i think that it is important that ucsf continue to be that world-class institution that helped us during earthquakes, aids epidemic, covid. it's a situation that is very important to our city. i also think that this project will be very beneficial for us, you know, in the pandemic recovery. it will bring a really good construction job, it will bring, you know, more jobs to the city which we desperately need as families are losing their homes because of the lack of income,

and they're losing their jobs and i think that we really need it. and that being said, i am new to this body and my colleagues will soon find out that i really like is dotted and ts crossed. i am someone who likes to have things fully cooked. and the reason why that is because i'm a believe they're we're all doing this together. i'm an urban planner. and there is going to be a group of groups who are never going to like this. but i do think that as much as possible that we should all be in agreement going forward. and i shared with the folks at ucsf who i greatly respect and i have been nothing but collaborative that i -- what's important to me are housing, transportation, and workforce. and that, you know, that order of priority. and even though we have done a

lot of work in getting to an agreement about the affordable housing, as supervisor preston pointed out, i feel that the language is not fully cooked. i tang we need more specificity and more importantly more transparency so that everybody understands what we're doing and why we're doing it. i will point out that including the entire portfolio of housing for ucsf actually yields us a greater number of affordable housing units. but it is just not clear from the language. and, you know, the fact that you know, we have this agreement between us a week ago but it still didn't make it to the mayor's office until this morning, or, you know, yesterday evening, just indicates that things are moving fast. and a little bit too fast for me. because i do -- like i said, i do want every i dotted and every t crossed. and lastly, the thing that

bothers me the most and has nothing to do with the m.o.u., it's actually the project labor agreement. i am a very strong union person and i believe that we need these jobs in san francisco. we need the construction jobs. we need the jobs at ucsf, once the hospital is built. and those jobs need to be good jobs, good union jobs. i do believe that they will be. i've been assured by ucsf and also by my friends at the labor and construction trades council that, you know, things are going well. but we just don't have it. and so supervisor preston's resolution is today and so i have to vote on this today and i am not ready to say, hey, let's go forward with something that's not fully cooked. if between now and the time that this goes to the regents we do have all of those things, then,

you know, i may change my mind and, you know, give a letter of support. but as of right now i can't responsibly say that, you know, every i is dotted and every t crossed. and let me end by saying that a lot of the callers said, you know, to move this project forward or don't oppose this project. as supervisor peskin has very rightly pointed out, we actually don't have the authority to do either of those things. with this resolution, we are merely asking very nicely to the regents that they please consider not voting on this until march. they may say what the supervisors are thinking, this is important, and they may say that it's not important at all. so the regents don't know. we are only saying that we're not quite ready and we wish that you could give us more time. so that is what we're doing with this resolution and as of right now i will be supporting this

resolution and, like i said, things may change if we can get things a little bit more fully cooked. and to reiterate, the things that are important to me are the affordable housing and the project labor agreement. but thank you, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. you are muted, but i think that i read -- so, thank you, chair melgar and supervisor peskin and just everyone for, you know, -- i think this is an important project. while we don't have direct regulatory control over it, i think that our view matters on this body and i think that i appreciate the time that we were able to take to dive into some of the issues here. you know, i do -- i do want to offer an amendment to item 2,

that is the resolution, and this was previously circulated to your offices and the purpose is really a housekeeping amendment. it's unclear from the regents' agenda what is on there and it's actually certification of e.i.r., i believe both of that and the changes to the amendments to the lrdp. so the purpose of the amendment is just to include the changes to the lrdp there. and so the amendments which other than distributed earlier today, as i mentioned, are as follows -- just in the long title page one, line 5-6, include, quote "and amendment to the 2014 long-range development plan, lrdp," closed quote. and that is on page 3, line 18, line 23, and page 4, line 2, where we add, quote "and 2014lrdp amendment." and i confirmed with the city

attorney that these amendments are non- substantive in nature and they'll move the item forward to the full board as a committee report as amended. but before taking action on the motion, i just want to reiterate what i think that was made clear by our conversation today. and a lot of the public comment. i think that, you know, we're getting there with this plan and with the m.o.u., but it is not fully baked and not all in the words of the chair -- not all of the is have been dotted here. so i think that it is -- it is pretty much premature for the regents to move forward given all of the important questions that came up, some which remain unanswered, to have them to move in a matter of days on this. so i urge and i appreciate what sounds like chair melgar's support, i would urge supervisor peskin, but also all of our

colleagues, to support that additional time. and, again, this is not a request to delay six months or a year, this is trying to speak with one voice as much as possible to the regents to move this simply to the next -- their next meeting. as i said before, i think that this will provide time to not only for everyone to better understand the m.o.u. and how we can mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, it's whether -- you know, how we can be assured that the terms will be complied with and are enforceable. and it's really my hope that this will lead to a project, and particularly a community benefits package that has brought support and that this is a less divisive issue and not a more divisive issue, through the work that we do. and i know that my colleagues share that goal in trying to facilitate that conversation in the upcoming weeks and months. so, finally, colleagues, to

appreciate the time taken by ucsf and the chancellor and the folks at the planning department and the mayor's office and all of the neighbors and advocates and stakeholders. as i mentioned my colleagues on this committee to engage on this issue. so, thank you, and i would like to move those amendments. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: i'm totally fine with the amendments and i'm happy to take a vote on that, but i do have a question for the representatives from the university of california. and it will probably turn out to be a naive question. but maybe we should just start by taking the vote on the amendments relative to lrdp. or if you want, i'm happy to ask my questions first. >> i think that you should ask your questions first. >> supervisor preston: okay. so through the chair to mr. newman, i think what you're

hearing here is that everything that has happened over 28 meetings and all of the community outreach and the interaction with the planning department and the mayor's office and supervisor yee and now supervisor melgar and supervisor preston, is actually getting somewhere. and i feel pretty good about that if i was u.c. you may as we discussed the other day still have detractors and it may end up in litigation and that is certainly above my pay grade. but the question that i wanted to ask is, insofar as it seems like we're getting down to the short straws and a few things that need some i dotting and t crossing -- my understanding is that the u.c. regents are meeting on this item in the month of january and have another meeting in the month of

february and another meeting in the month of march. and the subject resolution, which is totally advisory to you as you're an autonomous agency of the state of california, is to move this to your march meeting. if everything got done in time, could it move to your february meeting or alternatively, do you ever have special meetings and i know that is a naive question because i used to be a commission and the answer is no. >> just to be clear, the full regents meet every other month. and the same with their finance and capital committee, which is a key committee for this matter. so they'll meet in january and their next meeting is in march. there's other activities that happen in february. but it's not my understanding that they ever have special meetings for items like this. it would have to go in march if it wasn't in january. >> supervisor preston: thank you, i knew that was a naive question and i'd like to be appointed to the board of regents where i get to meet every other month.

>> they may get paid less than you, i don't know. >> supervisor preston: they even get paid? okay. >> chair melgar: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: before you sign up, i learned that the terms are 12 years. >> chair melgar: okay, so i think that we have to file this hearing first before we can vote on your motion. >> so moved. >> before we do, i would suggest that we move item 1 to the call of the chair in case there is some follow-up and the chair would like to continue at a future date. >> so moved. >> chair melgar: actually, i would like to file this. >> i will not rescind. so moved.

>> clerk: a roll call. on a call to file the order [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: would somebody like to make a motion. >> the president has moved the amendments. >> chair melgar: i can't hear you. a second? >> no second required. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor preston, for helping me. >> clerk: on the motion to amend item number 2 as stated by supervisor preston... [roll call vote] you have three ayes.

>> and then move to forward the item with recommendation to the full board as a committee report. >> clerk: on the motion stateed by supervisor preston to recommend the item as a committee report. [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: thank you, madam clerk. can you call item 3 now. >> clerk: item 3 is a res leugdz initiating a landmark designation under article 10 of the planning code for the jones coffee company building at 447 battery street. the members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number three should call the number on the screen, scree.

and use the meeting code and then press pound and pound again if you have not done so already, press star and 3 to line up to speak. madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you. supervisor peskin, for introducing this item, did you want to have some comments? >> supervisor peskin: madam clerk, miss major, i don't know that you read the correct item. >> chair melgar: yes, it's on chestnut street. >> clerk: i apologize. i read an old item number 3. item number 3 is a resolution initiating a landmark designation under article 10 for the fresco titled the making of fresco showing the building of a city, painted in 1931 and located at 800 chestnut street. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. i am like did i miss that. i did promise myself that this

would be over by 6k to my spouse and i'm usually a good judge of how long hearings will go but i can't believe that we're on item number 3, so i'll keep it very short. i think that many people in this town and all of the members of the board of supervisors are aware of not only the sfai, the san francisco art institute, which was built in 1926, and was actually designated as landmarked number 85 in 1977, by then supervisors diane finestein and copp and nine of their colleagues and signed into law by mayor george musconi that had been approved by the planning commission. and chair melgar, if you remember him, the chair's secretary who later on ended up

being the secretary to the board of appeals, robert feldman, signed that on behalf of the planning commission. the case report was prepared in december of 1975. and calls out not only the exterior features, but the diego rivera murals within that building. the san francisco art institute is having a rough financial patch. it's not the first one that they have had. when i first got elected 20 years ago they went on an ambitious expansion and then subsequent contraction that happened again recently when -- if you want to do small world story it's -- they expanded into the land of rich hillis at fort mason, and got a little bit over

over, and now they are contemplating the sale and removal of one of the rivera's three incredible works in the city and county of san francisco. one at the city club, one at city college, and one at this facility that has been open to the public night and day for decades. i believe that the mural is already protected as a defining feature of landmark number 85. but in any event, because of its unique significance and its relevance to san francisco's artistic heritage, the significance as a center of mural art, it merits individual designation. this is the initiateiation of that 1931 piece of incredible art, it is all set forth in the

resolution to initiate -- and i think that is really all i have to say. i do want to say that i am working with the art institute and i have spoken to the president of their board of directors. i'm at city hall, so welcome to civic center, now going by supervisor preston's office, you can hear how the fire truck is moving. and, really, i want that institution to get back on its feet and to survive and to have the murals endowed. and having said that i am disappointed that the leadership of that institution chose to hire legal counsel and a lobbyist, duly noted. with that, madam chair, if there are no questions or comments i would suggest that we open it up to public comment. i would like to forward this as a committee report to the full

board of supervisors for a hearing tomorrow. this sent the landmark designation, this is the resolution to initiate and, again, i believe that they are already designated pursuant to landmark 85 in 1977. >> duly noted that the as a committee report. i want to also say thank you so much for initiating this, this particular mural is similarly important to me. very few mexican and latino artists have such important work around our town. the really important that we keep it. so with that, madam clerk, are there any public comments? >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. we have 22 listeners and five in queue. james will be unmuting the first caller for us. >> caller: hello, my name is...

(indiscernible) and i'm with s.r.u. 10221. and faculty was 70% of the teaching before the closure after the first shelter in place. at that time the school laid everyone off and sent all of the students packing. and then the board of trustees changed its mind and they have a skeleton staff, a handful of teachers and fewer than 20 students. the leadership has failed this school repeatedly and put it in jeopardy by running a debt with expansion with no clear plan to pay for it. now the board of trustees want to rip out the heart of the school and sell it off. selling the mural would not stop the bleeding debt and the disgust and the opposition of the community, which would mean that the school would never be able to open again. rivera's mural was painted for the people of san francisco

during the great recession. the workers building the city of san francisco. the mural rivera is seen from behind facing the worker. the artist turns his sizeable backside to the viewer. his message is clear -- you must choose which side you're on, on the side of the community and the workers and the people who built this city, or are we on the side of the strategy of the failed board driven by debt to sell off what they perceive as their assets. we support the designation for the diego rivera mural. help us to preserve the cultural heritage of san francisco and stop sfai to use the cover of covid to destroy this irreplaceable mural. the board of trustees has dug this hole and they can't use our community property to plug that. thank you very much.

>> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. hello, caller, you're on the line. >> caller: hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, you may begin your comments. >> caller: right now? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: okay. my name is patrice tarmas and i'm a recent staff member. i have many different importances with the diego rivera mural. and recently when conversations have surfaced that there was thoughts of selling the mural, i felt amongst many other current

faculty, staff, and alumni and staff and other stakeholders made clear that any and all conversations about the mural needed to be opened up to the expanded community and not only the arts community and the community of sfai, but to the indigenous and the hispanic community locally and internationally. this piece of work has so much more valuable beyond a monetariy contribution, and it's extremely shortsighted of the leadership who believe that these contributions of selling the mural would offset the damage that would do and it would only last possibly even a few years. and as the school is meant to be a steward of the arts education, it is part of our duty as an institution to also be stewards for the work and to the cultural and the historical heritage that is part of that mural.

it's extremely disappointing to watch leadership speak so flippantly about something that is so important. to continue to not answer to or to speak with the community that has been requesting this conversation for months on end now, and to continue to position the sale of the mural as something that will either save the staff or the faculty or the students or the school will go under. this is not clear thinking and there's not enough going on to sell the mural and we cannot let this mural leave. and we cannot let diego rivera's work -- >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. we have 26 listeners with five in queue. >> caller: hello, am i up?

hello? >> clerk: yes, you can begin your comments. >> caller: okay. thank you. hello, my name is lindsay white and i'm a assistant professor at the art institute. i'm calling in support of the landmark designation for the diego rivera mural, showing the building of the city. the mural is a property of the people at large. including but not limited to the people of the united states, mexico and the city of san francisco. unless proven otherwise, nowhere within the study of rivera's work is there evidence of his portable mural technology signifies his intention or permission for the mural to be relocated away from sfai or the city of san francisco. selling or removing a mural from its original context is equal to defacing an historical asset and an erasure and ghosting of narratives and histories. additionally, i'm concerned about the future of the diego rivera mural if the sfai board

takes a loan against it. we haven't been given a clear picture of the fate of the mural if the board is unable to pay off loans taken against the mural. i find it deeply unethical for the board to pursue a sale or a loan against the diego rivera mural. and many of us have wished for the support from the city to save diego rivera's mural. i hope that the landmark designation for the mural moves forward. thank you, supervisor peskin, for initiating this proposal. i wish that the city would step in to save our art school. it's struggling to survive, after about being here for 150 years, without any conversation about using diego rivera's legacy to stay afloat. i ask them to hear the concerns about the mural from other stakeholders at sfai beyond the board president, but reach out

to fannulatey -- faculty and staff as well. and we have been inspired by his mural for decades. >> clerk: thank you. thank you so much for your comments. the next speaker, please. and the prompt will indicate that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> caller: good evening, i'm the board chair at sfai. i am joined on this call by administrators and faculty members who are members of the board. and i -- we would all like to have a chance to speak, is that acceptable in this meeting? i have a short statement and as do they. and we're all on the same line. >> clerk: you have two minutes each.

>> caller: okay. so on behalf of the board of trustees and the other faculty and the administrators who have joined me here tonight, i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing our extraordinary diego rivera mural to the public's attention. we agree that it is a work of great historic importance and worthy of landmark status. the sfai board and administration is unanimous in our desire to keep our mural in the city it reflects regardless of what you may have read in "the new york times" or elsewhere. and we want to keep it in the institution that recognize diego's experience and talent back in 1931. however, we ask that you consider the needs and the mission of sfai broadly. and to defer further action and so that sfai are able to secure

its financial future. landmarking the mural now when there is no imminent threat of it being sold without consideration of sfai's position, it deprives sfai of the value of its primary and most valuable asset with immediate and potentially devastating consequences for sfai and its students and employees. the mural fate is inextricably linked to the fate of the san francisco art institute. a cultural institution that has been educating artists. >> clerk: thank you so much for your -- >> chair melgar: i'm so sorry to cut you off but your two-minute time is up and we need to move to the next speaker, even if it's within your same line. is that clear?

>> caller: (indiscernible) my name is elizabeth. and i'm not on the board of trustees with the san francisco art institute or an administrator. i am a san francisco resident and a parent of a sfusd second grader and an artist and a president of the adjunct faculty meeting. we are here because philanthropists failed to follow through on the $19 million for the expangz. they gambled on a loan, and the livelihoods of its community members. their failure to follow through on this promise for our students and faculty, they were forced to shoulder the burden. now they want to remove and sell a landmark work of art to compensate for their shortfall. this needs to be stopped and the site must be protected from their negligence.

students who have high loans and faculty have had staggering salaries and the part-time positions year after year. and the residents had (indiscernible) has been a loss for san francisco's art community. we have multimillion dollar hole in an institution of learning. gutting the community that has helped to been around for 150 years. and someone should really investigate that. they laid off 300 students and staff and now the removal and sale of this monumental work of art. the mural is a testament to the purpose of art and the importance of essential workers, one of the most celebrated artists of color. to have the trustees, it's

unethical and a slap in the face to the artists of color that have called san francisco home. we cannot allow the -- >> clerk: thank you. so are there any other callers on this line? >> caller: hi. yes, i'm renee morrison, artist alumni and former adjunct of sfai. they have offered up the mural, and as a temporary bandage on their financial calamity. the board of trustees has completely failed the people that make sfai whole. the staff and faculty that were discarded last year under the guiseof a covid-19 pandemic, asl as the students which the institution exists to serve.

this is not their mural to sell. the trustees have proven to be unfit to serve or to represent the sfai community and have no place deciding the future of this important cultural asset. to even entertain the idea of the removal of the mural is a deep insult to our community and an insult to the artists themselves. it's depicting artists and labor and the working class for the public. i have had the privilege to exhibit in the diego rivera gallery politics to the mural in 2017. i am in support of the designation of this invaluable artwork. thank you so much for your time and, yeah, fuck you. >> clerk: next speaker, please.

hello? >> caller: hi there. thank you. my name is dr. riskler, and the dean of the san francisco art institute. and i want to make it very clear that the sfai board and the administration is unanimous in its desire to keep our mural in the city it reflects and in the institution that recognizes diego's importance in 1931. however, we ask that you consider the needs and the mission of sfai more broadly and defer further option until sfai are able to secure its financial future. by landmarking the mural now, without sufficient consideration of sfai's financial position, you deprive sfai of the value of its primary asset and its immediate and dest stating consequences for sfai, and its faculty and staff and employees. contrary to the previous conversation, we have over 40 students, not 20. the mural's fate is linked to the fate of the san francisco

art institute, a cultural institution that has been educating artists since 1871. like other small colleges across the country, we face challenges in the wake of pandemic. much has been said about the misstep of the leadership in the last decade, but our financial woes are shared by similar schools across country. i only need to remind you of two schools that closed, including the oregon college of arts and craft. we are facing extinction as we stand alone with the independent fine arts school and one of the last in the country exclusively dedicated to the education of contemporary fine artists. we need protection now. on behalf of the sfai trustees, i ask you to consider taking the time to come up with a creative plan that will protect both the mural and the sfai before it is too late. thank you.

>> clerk: we will look back to the folks on the party line. so, james, if you could unmute the caller that we discussed. >> caller: yes, that's us. so, bonnie, if you could speak, this is bonnie levinson who is a member of the board of trustees. >> caller: thank you be, pam. you know, the san francisco art institute is one of a kind, just like the city of san francisco. and, in fact, sfai is at the very heart of our identity at this city. and the difference today is that 150 years ago, long before the technology industry moved here, our city founders established this institution that nurtured innovation and creativity. and the artists at sfai and the student and faculty and alumni have pioneered art forms and means of expression, with film

and photography, and [reading of names]. look i don't need to go through all of this. what i need to tell you is that the board of trustees of the san francisco art institute is committed to keeping the mural in place. endowing it in place. and we need the help of everyone to come forward to work in unity together. because together and not at cross purposes we can help to save the mural by helping to save sfai. thank you. >> caller: maria gonzalez on the faculty at sfai and she has a statement. >> caller: hi, i'm the chair (indiscernible) and if we cannot raise the funds and public support necessary to rebuild our program and staff

and enrollment post-pandemic, we cannot continue to save the mural that we had in place for the last 90 years. last summer sfai came very close to losing both the campus and mural in foreclosure to a bank, that was only shopping the mural -- thanks to our long-time partners and supporters of the university of california, and now we have six years to pay off our loans from debt. which totals $19.7 million plus interest. we cannot pay that back. ownership of the campus will (indiscernible) hold the remainder interest in the property since the 1800s and we can't afford to take the mural with us. landmarking the mural won't accomplish the goals of safeguarding it in perpetuity. if the mural ends up in the

hands of u.c., or the chestnut street campus and the state agency not band are bound by the landmark designation. thank you very much.

du. >> is it stops equity making the system harder to navigate and >> is it stops equity making the we don't need the status quo. a conservative approach and if we can move to having a car ot t or reward it can help facilitate those goals. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please, this is system will indicate that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors, my name is robert buckman and i live in district 5 and the biggest issue with this is not that supervisor is that supervisor peskin's is not

backed up by any data. we have a planning department changes and give reports and i'm glad that there's been consultation but the consultation doesn't mean much if you don't have any data or analysis and there is no data and there is no analysis. why is this such an urgent matter that it must be enacted tomorrow. how is the single family home construction which is intended to be preventative. there's probably very little comparison between 2015, 2019 or a 230 single-family homes are authorized for construction for the entire city. this change could be clear is meant to encourage market rate apartment construction and it does so with roughly 33,000 par else in the city and half of which are red line neighborhoods and including large slots of emissions and japan town and portions of chinatown and yet, they're over 100,000 parcels

that are zoned for residential housing and rh2, rh3, those are not, it still does nothing to address the housing districts because not half the size of homes in the many neighborhoods where single families trip plexes are the only buildable options and it's nothing to maximize sensories and those districts. the goal is to stop monster home construction, home sizes should be restricted everywhere. it really does not make any sense why this is so urgent that it musting done within days, without acknowledgment and community input. this is absolutely nuts. there's no reason to do this and if this is so urgent, if this is meaning so much why are we not getting analysis? why do we not have anyone to tell us what will happen here? it seems pretty strange.

>> thank you, very much. next speaker, please, your line is going to be unmuted and you may begin. >> caller: good evening, supervisors, it's been a long day so i'll try to keep it short. this is aussie with san francisco coalition and neighborhood council. i am calling in support of this interim zoning control and thank you supervisor peskin for introducing this because we do need this. we have a lot of conversations about gentrification and there are a lot of heated debate on this and we really need to let a lot that has been zoned for multi-units to be just developed on one luxury tas ma hall single family home, we don't. i support this legislation for one precise reason.

we cannot talk from both sides of our mouth. either you believe there's a housing problem in this city and if we are not putting on a lid on the market rate housing that needs to be developed, then at least we need to have some regulations here. so, if we need more housing, and if the lot is zoned for multi units, it should be built as multi units. and this does not happen, it does happen often enough and a developer would like to build one single family luxury unit on a lot zoned for two, three, four units. i myself encountered one such situation in mill valley where the developer had gotten this house, this building that was zoned for three units and he just wanted to build two and luckily i was at the

preoccupation meeting and i told him, listen, if you want to do this with two units i'll see you at the commission using authorization of the planning commission and guess what, he ended up changing his plans and he did build three units and his plan was approved. >> thank you so much. next speaker, please. you will have two minutes. >> caller: -- >> if you can lower your television in the back, please. you are on the line. caller, you have been unmuted, would you like to make public comment? let's move to the next caller,

please. >> caller: good evening, my name is chris shuffleman i live in the part of district 3 and i've been involved in the community for over 10 years and various capacity. i've filed a request for discretionary review against the project in in a neighborhood that proposes to build a 3200 square foot single family home in an rn3 zoning district on a lot that can accommodate 16 units of housing. justify for reference, 3,200 feet is three times the minimum size the state sets for a four bedroom home. it's double the size of the average home on bernal hill. 500 square foot larger than the average home size in saint francis and if you look at what else is on that block, it's large apartment buildings and victoria yan style that are rent controlled. there's no reason why 3,200 square foot single family home should be compliant in a dense

neighborhood in the city let alone anywhere else in san francisco. since these interim zoning introduces are introduced the project sponsor is revised a project of two units, one 870 square foot unit with rear exposure only and a second unit. that's an improvement but looking at the plans, i'm still concerned that it's going to be marketed as a single familiar will he home. it's still reflecting the market that will do the bear minimum could meet code requirements and instead of providing what the city really needs. i support the zoning in terms of the controls and i thank the supervisor and the staff and the planning department and i would like to see more controls around the unit size equity going forward. thank you so much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, this is sonia trouse, i'm

calling on behalf of myself as a person. who is in the bay area. i think that you should vote no on these interim controls and let this proposal go through the order din ary process. if it's a good idea, then it will come out the other end and probably modified and better for it. with all of the public comments and studies from the planning commission that a major change like this should have. it could happen anyway. what is 18 months? what's the rush. if it's a bad idea, you don't want to have enacted it without really knowing what you are doing. i do think that it's not good to add process while you are trying to do is to if sil tate density and facilitate more housing. a bill would have done it by say

making projects that max out their density ministerial. that would increase density and i think that's a good suggestion and you should do that. another way to keep single-family homes from taking up so much space is inform up zone the whole city. i think it rings false, you know, the idea that there are 30,000 lots and we're so concerned to make sure they're apartment this is these two neighborhoods and city has large homes and no one cares there are large homes out there, right so is this really about maximizing density and adding housing? if it was, it should be all over the city and there are one zones that should all be multi family zones and that's how we add housing by allowing more

housing, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. you will have two minutes. >> caller: good evening, supervisor, this is sarah ogilvie and i live in the mission. i'm concerned with this legislation. if it proposes to increase housing production and density and if it's effectively protecting tenants, the board shouldn't allow it to apply only as some neighborhoods and not others. this legislation is going to double down on already existing equities in zoning across san francisco. the planning staff analyzed this under a lens of racial and social equity and they're going to see the obvious when they look at maps that this legislation we have sc10 on rh-1

lots. we should allow maximized density across the city. otherwise this is a lopsided and deeply inequitable resolution that does not further fair housing. thank you. >> you, next speaker. >> district five and i appreciate the spirit of to intense density but i'd like to make comments. first, i worry about the unethical impact and the proposal to increase density should apply to where i live. it would be a shame if they keep pushing it closer to sensitive areas on the website to accommodate so much more housing

and and the proposal has one more regulation and one more stick to developers and in order to complex regulatory environment and it's going in the wrong direction. i love density but we should use carrots and recuse parking and housing projects and the up front cost, you can only build if you have maximum density and maximum density contracts they're edmontoning another stake and development which hurts our ability to meet our obligations and on the probability of development on the site and i hope we can take this into a positive direction and using carrots to incentivize maximum density and it should be up close and thank you.

we have 10 listeners and three in queue. >> hello this is johnathan randolf. i agree with the previous speaker and i urge you to oppose the interim controls on housing that isn't perfect because i'm not sure that this resolution is going to use more good harm and because this is a maximum a minimum required density regulation and if we impose a minimum require density regulations for people that build housing, they build housing but not as much as permitted, is this extra $10,000 permit fee plus tens of thousands of dollars of holding costs for projects that are not perfect more likely to incentivize or more likely to dis insen ta voice any projects and we don't know which one it's going to be and we don't know because no one else has been

done on these interim controls. it's equal to the maximum zoning implies we know the feasibility of construction and every neighborhood but this is arrogant. we don't know enough to plan the needs and for example, last april i recall a project of 387 ace avenue and lament in an rm1 cone that did not maximize the number of units because the family who owned the lot can only afford to build two units instead of the three permitted and the planning commission approved that project would require use help them? no it public front but what i think the planning -- what i think we should do instead is to actually proactively encourage

the projects that we want and instead of adding more process to the projects that aren't perfect and i believe there should be a gradient of capital investments that depends on location desirability if every lot is feasible. we have 10 listeners with 3 in the queue. next speaker. i was in san francisco and district 7 and i support increasing density in san francisco and i oppose the legislation. if we have a concern about single family homes laced in land in san francisco and we should, then why is so much of the land in our city only allowing for single-family homes. why do we persist with zoning that mirrors the red line map. please fix that. everywhere in our city, like on

the west side of the city which live. we should put this change through our regular process and making zoning changes so we have this full report on the other callers. let's encourage more housing and do it with carrots, not sticks. thank you. >> thank you next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening supervisors, corey smith, again on behalf of the housing action coalition. we absolutely like where this legislation is going and the intent of this legislation. we often talk about ways that we can create intensive to maximize the homes and whether it should be a car ot weather it should be a stick. and we absolutely do believe that it would be most effective to try to figure out ways to insensitive activities or

behavior that we want as opposed to disincentivize behavior we don't want and however we can be helpful in doing that and we make ourselves available. but to chair melgar's comment to open the fact that this is creative, this is thinking outside the box, is something that we greatly appreciate and we would ask how we as a city want to define success for this piece of legislation and continue to try to find ways to get as many homes built as possible. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for calling. we're circling back to the last caller. you've been unmuted. caller, you are on the line for public comment.

>> clerk: let's go ahead and mute this person. maybe they inadvertently put themselves in the queue and madam chair, that completes the queue. >> thank you so much. does supervisor preston have any comments before we make a motion? >> no comments at this time, thank you. >> supervisor peskin, do you want to make a motion? >> madam chair, i suggest we have public comment asking me to make a motion. it's appreciated and i would like to make a motion to send this item with recommendations to the full board as a committee report. >> through the chair, shall we take the amendment offered first. >> i'm sorry, my apologies mrs. major, let me start by

adopting the aforementioned amendments and i'd like to move the amendments. >> on the motion stated by supervisor peskin. supervisor peskin. aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> madam chair, i'd like to move the item as amended with recommendations as a committee report. >> on the motion as stated by supervisor peskin. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. thank you. >> madam chair, that concludes the business for this evening. >> that concludes the business for this evening. we can end the meeting. my first meeting. yeah. >> yeah.

>> i don't even have a gavel. i'll use my pen. [laughter] >> bye, guys, see you tomorrow. >> thank you. >> thank you.

. >> you're watching coping with covid-19 with chris manners. >> hi. i'm chris manners, and you're watching coping with covid-19.

today, my guest is phil ginsburg. he's the director of the san francisco rec and parks, and he's a national rec and park ranger. thank you for being here. >> hi, chris. thank you for having me. >> i've heard you have an exciting new exhibit that features social distancing and is outside, so it's safer. can you tell us a little bit about it? >> the golden gate 50 anniversary wasn't the celebration that we hoped for, but when life deals you lemons, you hope to make lemonade, and we tried to engage people in the park in different ways. behind me is what we did. it's a public exhibit which has

transformed peacock meadows into an enchanted forest of other worldly shapes and lights. it's to close out golden gate park's 150 years and to allow people to have outdoors socially distant fun. >> great. and what are the hours, and when can people go see it, and are there access for wheelchairs and strollers? >> well, it will run until february 27, and the ways are wheelchair accessible. it will close in time to make the city's curfew.

we're not supposed to be gathering. we're not supposed to be celebrating out there, unfortunately. it is a beautiful exhibit and is one that can be seen from the sidewalk or you can wander into the meadow, but we ask that people be really mindful of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. the most important thing for us is to be safe and healthy. do not show up with other households. come and see it, get a little taste of the holidays and leave so other people can enjoy it. if it's too crowded, comeback because it's going to be around for a while. >> how long does it take to walk around the exhibit? >> well, you could be there for five minutes or 15 minutes or longer if it's not crowded. it's about in an acre of

meadow, but it's very visible even from a fully accessible sidewalk. you'll get a sense of it. basically, there are sculpted trees, and it's gorgeous. i got an opportunity to visit it over the weekend. the conservatory of flowers is there, and then, we have our amazing spreckels temple of music which was recently renovated and lit up in lights. >> i have information that it

was created by a local artist. what can you tell us about it? >> well, it's a new concept, but the lights were previously installed in a park in toronto and also in las vegas. the installation has been paid for through private donations to the golden gate park's san francisco 150 campaign. it reflects a culture steeped in science and history and culture. >> i can't wait to visit it. safely, of course. >> wear masks, distance,

sanitize, and don't gather. >> well, thank you for coming on the show today, mr. ginsburg. i appreciate the time you've given us today. >> thank you, and thank you for giving so much attention to golden gate park which has been so wonderful for us during covid and deserves a lot of extra love and attention on its 150 anniversary. >> and that's it for this episode. we'll be back with more information shortly. thank you for watching coping with >> candlestick park known also as the stick was an outdoor stadium for sports and

entertainment. built between 1958 to 1960, it was located in the bayview hunters point where it was home to the san francisco giants and 49ers. the last event held was a concert in late 2014. it was demolished in 2015. mlb team the san francisco giants played at candlestick from 1960-1999. fans came to see players such a willie mays and barry bonds, over 38 seasons in the open ballpark. an upper deck expansion was added in the 1970s. there are two world series played at the stick in 1962 and in 198 9. during the 1989 world series against the oakland as they were shook by an earthquake. candlestick's enclosure had minor damages from the quake but its design saved thousands of

lives. nfl team the san francisco 49ers played at candlestick from feign 71-2013. it was home to five-time super bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the 2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played with the beatles in 1966, the stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific rail park in 2000 while the

49ers moved to santa clara in 2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the stick. (♪♪♪)

[gavel] >> chairman: good morning, everyone, this meeting will come to order. this is the january 13th, 2020, budget and finance committee meeting. i'm mat haney, your new chair of the budget and finance committee. and i'm joined