because their work in our most important communities is now known beyond just san francisco recreation and park department, and together, we're going to continue to work with our city's most vulnerable kids and teach them to love the beautiful game. >> i want to tell everybody back home, i hope you all make it over here and join teams like this like street soccer u.s.a., and live your life. get a better life. >> right away, just be patient, and then, everything will be okay. >> good afternoon at this meeting will come to order. welcome to the may 3, 2021 of

the land use and transportation committee meeting. i'm chair of the committee. we are expecting vice chair supervisor dean preston shortly. >> supervisor preston: i'm here. >> supervisor melgar: also supervisor peskin. committee clerk is erica major. i like to acknowledge sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, any announcements? >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 health emergency, city and employees of the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber is closed. members will be participating in the meeting remotely. precaution is taken pursuant to the stay-at-home order. committee members will attend the meeting through video

conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. sfgov tv are streaming the call-in number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period by calling the number 415-655-0001. access code, 187 757 8098. press pound and pound again. when connected you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted and in listen mode only. when your item comes up, dial star and 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from

a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment. you can e-mail myself land use transportation clerk @ericamajorsfgovtv.org. @ericamajorsfgovtv. written comments maybe sent to city hall one dr. carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california, 94102. items are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of may 11th. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much. please call item number one.

>> clerk: an ordinance amending the fire code to upgrade existing fire alarm systems from july 1, 2021 to july 1, 2023. making findings under the california health and safety code. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number one should call the number on the screen. that number is 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. is 187 757 8098. you'll only press star once to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised outward hand in confirmation. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much. we have andy mullen here for any questions. we won't have any formal presentations since we heard this last week.

before we go to public comment, colleagues do you have any further questions on this item? >> supervisor peskin: my chat button is broken. i do want to announce one very small technical amendment at page 4 line 21, which should read in the middle of that line, 5e, not 4d. after public comment i will make an amendment to change that hypertechnical reference. other than that i have no comments. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you supervisor peskin. let's go to public comment. >> clerk: thank you. we're checking to see if there's callers in the queue.

we have seven listeners. >> supervisor melgar: public comment is closed. supervisor peskin would you like to make a motion? >> supervisor peskin: i do, i like to thank supervisor stefani for the amendments. i like to thank the voting inspection commission and with that, i would like to make the eighth ward mention amendment at page 4 line 21 to change 4d to 5e. i will look and make sure that what i said is correct. page 4 line 21, 5e, not 4d,

middle of that line. my memory is still working. >> supervisor melgar: please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion as stated by supervisor peskin to amend on page 4 line 21 from 5e not 4d. the other way around. [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: do we have a motion to send this item out of committee with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> clerk: on the motion as stated to recommend as amended. [roll call vote] you have three ayes.

>> supervisor melgar: thank you very much. now, if you could call item number 2. is supervisor mar here? please call item 2. >> clerk: it's a resolution supporting california state senate bill number 37 on contaminated site the hazardous waste site cleanup safety act. offered by senator david cortese. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on it up number two should call the number on the screen. that number is 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. is 187 757 8098.

pound and pound again. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand in confirmation. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much. welcome supervisor mar to the land use committee. we will let you present first. then we'll be joined by ryan nichol who is the legislative aide with senator david cortese, lisa gibson and director of the environmental planning division at our city planning department and richard dory, who is environmental attorney and also district 7 resident. thank you so much. i will let you kick it off supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you very much for this opportunity to consider this resolution in support of sb37, the contaminated site clean up and

safety act. i thank you for your co-sponsorship for this resolution. sb37 pertains to contaminated sites on the state's cortese list which are barred from receiving exemptions to environmental review for ceqa, will be considered for redevelopment. for over three decades the cortese list documented ongoing contamination on the site throughout the state to protect public health and the environment. there are over 2000 cortese list sites in our city. we're seeing these sites increasingly targeted for redevelopment. in my district, for example, five of eight new multiunit housing developments recent realize constructed are in the pipeline are on cortese list sites. sb37 would close a loophole and ensure common sense exemptions cannot be granted on cortese list sites. by law it can be granted only

where it can be seen with certainties that there is no obligate -- possibility that the activity in question have significant affect on the environment. the activity not subject no ceqa. in 2019 san francisco residents near cortese site plan challenging the sf planning department after granted common sense exemptions to ceqa and the residents filed an appeal to the board of supervisors. in spite of ongoing contamination from 100-year-old auto body shop, exceeding 200 times the standard for industrial site, these exemptions had been granted by the city. the appellant fought for a process allowing what ceqa provide. colleagues as co-sponsors of the

resolution, i thank you for your support for sb37. this bill reaffirms the role of ceqa in providing public oversight of the monitoring and cleanup of contamination on cortese list sites. i did want to note that my legislative aide has submitted some proposed amendments to the resolution on to you. i believe yesterday. these include edits to align with recent amendments in sb37. subsequent to the board of supervisors introduction of this resolution. introduction of the resolution to the board of supervisors on april 6th. there's also some amendments to clarify the language in the resolution and also one amendment to correct a reference to statements in the public record. thank you again colleagues for this opportunity to consider

this important resolution. this resolution is in support such an important state bill. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much supervisor mar. we will now hear from ryan nichol who is the legislative aide to senator david cortese. >> i want to thank supervisor mar to elevating this issue. sb37 is a bill that will be safeguard public health by purchasing the use of common sense exemptions for projects located on cortese list sites. cortese list was created in the '80 by cortese list father.

there was very limited information about where site contamination was located. therefore, left local agencies and members of the community blind to the risk of developing sites in their communities. local agencies granted exemptions pursuant to common sense allowing projects to be carried out without adequate environmental review and public scrutiny. pursuing these projects without public accountability and appropriate cleanup per the severe health risks not only to the members of the community and neighborhood in future tenants of the property but labors working on the site. construction workers are particularly impacted group

because they are on the front lines of these projects. leaving them exposed to toxic fumes and other hazardous materials if proper environmental review bypassed. ceqa process is integral to protecting the rights of all impacted parties to understand the environment and health riskers imposed by certain projects. decades of research demonstrates what we know these hazardous waste sites -- as of law currently stand, as we have witnessed in areas like san francisco, the burden has rested on community members rather than local government to ensure that hazardous waste sites are being cleaned up properly.

we cannot continue to allow projects impacting cortese list sites to bypass ceqa review. sb37 makes important step towards protecting public health to promoting public accountability by ending the abuse of common sense exemption for projects impacting cortese list sites. i want to thank you again for your time. i urge your support of this measure. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much for presenting today. we also have lisa gibson from our planning department who will make the next presentation. welcome. >> thank you supervisor mar. i am lisa gibson, the environmental review officer for the city and county of san francisco. i'm joined by colleague tonya

shaneer. i ask that tonya share her screen with my slide presentation. let me know when you can see that. >> supervisor melgar: we can see it. >> great. supervisors, thank you so much for giving us this opportunity to contribute to this conversation. i'm going to be direct. we can't speak for the santa clara district, but in san francisco, sb37 would have a disproportionate and unintended consequence that is not good. specifically the bill would add to our bureaucracy, increasing time and cost for wide range of small home improvement and small business projects and slowing housing production. meanwhile, the bill would not have any environmental benefits. recognized how surprising this might sound, because of san francisco unique permitting process, even should over the count permits are subject to

ceqa. for this reason of statewide legislation, this committee needs to have all the facts before it. let's talk about the law that exist today. the quick easy list a state registration of contaminated sites. we have over 2300 cortese sites in the city. the majority over 2200 are not gas stations, dry cleaners or other types of industrial uses but rather are mostly residential sites with historic heating oil tanks that are underground tanks. 90% of the sites have all ready been remediated. per san francisco law requires further investigation when a new use is proposed on one of these sites. as needed, more remediation. in other words, existing san francisco specific regulations are already ensure that public

health and safety are not put at risk by development on cortese sites. i know that's the goal of the legislation. we find that the legislation doesn't take san francisco into account. what we've already accomplished in our regulation. once the site is on the list, it's always on the list. let's talk about how the bill would change existing law. sb37 would add process. san francisco already requires cleanup standards that exceed ceqa threshold. we could not review properties on the list using ceqa's common sense exemption. that's problematic. common sense is really important when it comes to making sure that homeowners and small businesses are not saddled with costly bureaucratic red tape. here's what that means operationally. unlike most other jurisdictions,

san francisco has a rigorous hazardous cleanup program that exceeds state standards. if a city approves a project that's a legislative requirement that appropriate remediation happens. sb37 would increase paperwork but create zero environmental enhancements. sb37 eliminates our ability to use the state common sense exemption even for projects that would not touch the soil on a already cleaned site. it's called common sense for a reason. another unique thing about san francisco, due to our city charter, almost every permit issued by the city is considered discretionary and subject to ceqa. this includes over the counter permits, even for projects that wouldn't touch the soil. the following actual permits that have been recently approved in san francisco could require a

$30,000 or more ceqa document that could take years up to a year to prepare. these are the projects. restaurant expanding its kitchen into the rear yard, a homeowner doing a seismic retrofit, a business installing an a.d.u. compliant ramp. let me repeat, in san francisco, even projects that do not involve soil disturbance are discretionary. this is such an important point that i asked city attorney to explain this. what some local supporters of this resolution have been telling you is false. by our estimates about 130 common sense projects a year in san francisco would be swept up into this costly and time consuming review as with over 130 total new housing units a year that were in small projects

like accessory dwelling units. >> supervisor peskin: i don't mean to interrupt, you said 130 units of housing. i wanted to factoid repeated. i apologize, ms. gibson, just repeat that. >> certainly. i did indeed say that 130 total net new housing units a year in small projects like accessory dwelling units would be requiring higher level of environmental review if this legislation was passed. >> supervisor peskin: would or might? >> if i could supervisor peskin. i would like to complete my presentation and i will be happy to answer any questions after that. all of that extra time and expense and paperwork would not change the fact that these projects would not require mitigation in san francisco. no added environmental benefit

after all that work. we developed this map to make the issue tangible as possible for the supervisors here today. i want to give example of projects within your district that have received common sense exemptions within the past year. they included, a roof replacement, replacing two failed windows, replacement of a front door, replacement of stucco interior. these projects were all on sites that have already been cleaned to the standard for the proposed use. most were approved over the counter after careful screening for any environmental issues. several other projects involve pass gas station uses. these are referred to the department of public health which ensures any additional remediation takes place is appropriate. before i wrap this up, i have to stress the impacts of sb37 in san francisco to both homeowners and the small business community.

all projects on the list regardless of size or scope, even on already clean sites and even ones that would not touch the soil, would be required to undergo the same level of ceqa review as is required for projects that is significant environmental impacts requiring mitigation. such as larger development projects like 1525 pine and 319 bay shore. unlike other cities in california, san francisco has a robust local process overseen by department of public health, that legislative will be required investigation and remediation, sb37 simply doesn't pause any improvements public health outcome. the board strengthens to local ordinance in 2013 so we could avoid the need to prepare mitigated negative declarations with the only environmental effect was related to hazardous substances. this bill will undo that good

work. we previously shared with you some subjected amendments to the proposed resolution that will support the intent of sb37 and position san francisco's model program as great model for the rest of the state without burdening homeowners, slowing the production of housing or making it harder for small businesses to recover. we'd be happy to go over that language with you. i'm sorry i have not seen the latest version of the resolution to see if it incorporates all of these recommendations. thank you for your time supervisors. i'm happy to respond to your questions. ryan casey from the san francisco department of public health is available. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much ms. gibson. do we have any questions or comments? >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, i would keep it to a

minimum. do you really think through the chair, to ms. gibson, that in the 530 matter, the moving issue was the cortese list? that's 256-unit residential building that i have championed now for a decade and a half. do you think that the cortese list was the moving issue in that that you invoked? >> supervisor peskin, through the chair. i was not saying that the cortese site issue was the moving issue for that project. i brought it up to illustrate the fact that project requires mitigation. therefore, that is the reason why that project requires a higher level of review, mitigating negative declaration as opposed to the other kinds of projects as i was providing as examples. that are ones that would qualify for a common sense exemption currently under the state law.

>> i apologize if it distracted. >> supervisor peskin: if i may through the chair, this is not even apples and oranges. this is not even grapefruits or apples. the issue there was that your department decided that a 1970s era concrete building was historic like what are we talking about? >> again, through the chair, the issue that we're raising here today is projects that are very common, small home improvements, small tenant improvements that would be requiring us to prepare a negative declaration because of this bill. whereas, currently many of these are approved over the counter. the difference is apples and oranges to use your phrase here, we're talking about instead of

one day over the counter review, that cost $350 the difference is that these projects would require a negative declaration at the cost of over $30,000 taking up to a year to prepare. again, the most important point is that ceqa is focused on protecting the environment as one of its key goals. this bill in san francisco, because of our unique robust regulatory program, it would not produce any environmental benefits. it doesn't take into account our unique nature and it would have a disproportionate effect because of our permits are considered discretionary even when they are over the counter. >> supervisor melgar: thank you ms. gibson. i think you made that point. let me go to supervisor mar. >> supervisor peskin: i totally get the fact that our charter and the ability that anybody can

pretty hard to do, it doesn't happen very often relative to discretionary review or to appeals. if you do this based on a number of permits that are issued every year, the number of people who go through the process of actually appealing something and paying the fees are diminished. putting that in the parking lot, i think there's a policy issue here that respectfully planning department and ms. gibson, that is worth talking about, which is what i think you said is that once you're on the list, you never come off the list. is that a function of cortese or is that a function of the maher act, our local law? >> thank you supervisor peskin. the question is, is a site on the list forever because of

local law or because of state law? the cortese list is a list that's compiled pursuant to a state government code and state agencies are responsible for maintaining with separate databases that identify those sites. those databases record the cases that are passed and cleaned up as well as ones that are open and ongoing reviews. we've contacted the state and in the past to clarify what is open versus closed. the government code doesn't say -- government code doesn't specify. we were informed by the case that closed cases are not considered to be on the cortese list. they had it on their website. they modified it and we currently consider all cases that are -- once the cortese

list all on the cortese list, we treat it that i based on the state guidance. it's not something specified in local regulation. >> supervisor peskin: i apologize for going down this rabbit hole. what you're saying is, you used to be able to get off the cortese list. the law hasn't changed. there's state guidance wherein you interpret said guidance that you can't get off the list. in the old days you interpret you could get off the list? >> it was not an interpretation, it was direct instruction from the state. state agency was responsible for maintaining that list. i wouldn't consider that an interpretation. it was a direct statement what we considered to be fact from the state. >> supervisor peskin: there's difference between guidance and a law. putting that in the parking lot. let me ask you, does any of this

has to do with supervisor william maher act? which was not exactly cortese act, kind of a local cortese act. yes or no? it's not just yes or no. you can say whatever you want. >> thank you. these are related but unfortunately, sb37 does not directly or even indirectly reference local programs like san francisco. the legislation sb37, requires no common sense exemption for cortese sites. this is regardless of programs like san francisco has that already requires the close look that the representative from senator cortese office was saying. we already require that new

development be referred to the department of public health if it is on a cortese site and they will conduct appropriate investigation and require remediation where necessary to meet state standards. that is the equivalent of what we understand this legislation is seeking to achieve. >> supervisor peskin: the issue and believe me, i bought and sold real estate for the last 30 years of my life. isn't an issue -- i don't it in california, once you dealt with dtsc and once you dealt with the department of health and gotten off the list, you got rid of benzene and hydrocarbons or whatever it was. isn't that the moving issue? don't away want to do no harm? isn't that what ceqa is about is

to inform decision makers whether you might be doing harm? isn't that the fundamental underpinning of ceqa? >> thank you. fundamental underpinning of ceqa is to inform the public and decision makers about projects that would have significant environmental effects on the environment and then to mitigate those impacts and require an e.i.r. if that vein, ceqa does not require all of that when there's any impact on the environment. it's focused on significant effects and with regard to the process here and for a site that has been remediated, there's an issue that the site has been cleaned up for prior use. let's say a gas station. maybe it's closed because it was a gas station. now you have a new development

coming in that's residential use. the disturbance of the soil could result in a potential exposure of workers and maybe new residents to that contaminated soil. because of that potential, our maher program requires that in our practices, we require that those sites go and enroll in the maher program and all of those issues are dealt with there. just because it was historic, doesn't mean it's not concern for public health and safety. we get that. that is something that our local program already addresses. >> supervisor melgar: if it's okay with you supervisor peskin, we have one more presenter. i like to give him a chance to do that before we go more into this. >> supervisor peskin: i yield the floor. >> supervisor melgar: i saw supervisor mar had his hand up too. supervisor mar, do you want to

ask a question or can we go ahead and let him present? >> supervisor mar: i think that makes sense and i will hold my questions. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, are you ready. >> i am. can you hear me all right? >> supervisor melgar: yes. >> thank you chair melgar. as one of your loyal district 7 residents, i'm pleased that you're sponsoring this resolution and holding this hearing. thank you also supervisor peskin and preston and supervisor mar who coincidentally i met gordon mar at the time when we were both doing environmental justice work. we have a long history of concern for environment and environmental justice. i think sb37 is really important to furthering that.

in response to the planning department's position, which is i think the key issue here, i want to point out. the planning department has been violating ceqa for a decade by granting ceqa exemptions to projects built on contaminated sites. ceqa section 210884 states that projects on contaminated sites cannot be exempted from ceqa period. it doesn't make it a distinction between categorical exemptions and common sense exemptions. sb37 was intended to close the loophole created that the planning department has exploited here. as a result, at least it dozen to 20 sites has been exempted improperly from ceqa review. sb37 is sponsored by labors international union of north america. also supported by a broad range of environmental groups, statewide groups like the sierra

club and green action and many others. all supporting this. when you see the construction trades and the environmental groups on the same page, you got to think there's something right going on here. the construction trades are concerned about protecting their workers health and safety from contaminated chemicals in the soil. environmental groups are concerned about protecting human health and the environment. it's all the same thing. ceqa is designed to protect human health and the environment. that's what this is all about. chronicle revealed that the city has exempted at least dozen sites ceqa review improperly. that was illegal. 1776 green, was 100-year-old auto repair shop. it was 900 times above residential standards and 200 times above commercial

standarding the planning department issued a ceqa exemption to a luxury condo to be built on the site. planning says, they weren't violating the law because someone at cal epa sent them an e-mail saying they can issue an ceqa exemption, so called closed cortese list sites. 1776 green wasn't closed. it wasn't open, unremediated cortese list site way above the standard. that argument doesn't hold water on its face here. second, the fact that someone at cal epa is not okay. if someone said it's okay to rob banks because of covid. i go out and rob a bank, i still violated the law when i robbed the bank. it's not a defense to say someone at the state told me it's okay.

they have been violating the law. the section -- common sense exemption is extremely narrow. it's narrower than categorical exemption. it can be used when it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of any adverse environmental impact. that's a really narrow exemption. it can't be used for contaminated sites. first, the result are the same. whether you call it common sense exemption or categorical exemption, the project is evading the ceqa review that is required by state law. second, section 21084 makes no distinction between categorical exemptions. it says no exemptions issued by the secretary of resources maybe used on cortese site. both common sense exemptions and categorical exemptions are created by the secretary of

resources. third, the courts already addressed this question. court held that a common sense exemption could not be used for a project on a contaminated site. the staff is ignoring the plain language of statute. also the case law. they are abandoned one illegal practice and replacing it with another illegal practice. city maher program ensures adequate clean up. weapon don't need ceqa. we all know that's not true. we have seen what happened in bay view hunters point. we seen what happened at treasure island. we seen what happened at 1776 green. under the maher program, the staff proposed to close that site entirely to take it off the cortese list.

despite that it had benzene 900 times at residential levels and they are planning to put condos on. clearly the staff is botching cleanups despite the maher program. it was only because we filed a ceqa appeal and had heightened level of scrutiny that we were able to find out about the contamination and ensure adequate cleanup plan. the courts addressed this problem in the case called parker shaddock neighbors versus berkeley in the court said berkeley's clean up program was not a substitute for ceqa. ceqa review was required. now it could be a negative declaration. doesn't have to be in the e.i.r. in every case. there has to be ceqa review so the public can review the cleanup plan, ensure it's adequate and appeal it in it's

not. ceqa statute defines that building materials is ministerial. the plain language of ceqa again, stick to the language says, building permits are ministerial. this idea of we're opening the floodgates every time someone wants to change a window or remodel their kitchen, they have to do ceqa, that's ridiculous. ceqa defines those building permits to be ministerial. the fact that san francisco has a program that happens to be called discretionary review and

you can appeal anything under discretionary review, that's a semantic coincidence. ceqa defines the term discretionary in a certain way, it says building permits are not discretionary. there's a case on it, called sierra club versus sonoma. in that case, the court held that the discretion that it exercised an agency has to be the type of discretion that can respond to the environmental hazards that are at issue. for example, in discretionary review, we're talking about what coloring you will paint a building. are you going to block someone's shadow or light. those are not ceqa issues. the question is can the city exercise discretion to address the environmental impact and

racial equity versus sonoma, the court said if not that doesn't trigger ceqa. there's another case versus contra costa. in that case, the contamination was on the far edge of a site. they were building something on another part of the site, low income housing project. the court said, since they are not disturbing the contaminated soil, ceqa review is not require. you need a project with real discretionary permits. that triggers ceqa. that's what sb37 is about. this idea of hundreds of projects a year, according to chronicle and i think the supervisor mar's own investigation, we're talking about 20 projects over the last decade. about two a year. can we have two projects a year go through some form of ceqa review so we can ensure adequate

cleanup. i think that's a reasonable thing to ask for. what's the cost here? it's not $30,000. $30,000 maybe the cost of developing a cleanup plan. but the staff already admits, they have to do the cleanup plan under the maher ordinance. that cost is sunk. the question is, do you take 20 days to show that cleanup plan to the public. so they can be sure it's adequate and it will not expose workers, neighbors or future residents. allow these neighbors to review it for 20 days, comment and appeal if it's not adequate. two projects a year we're talking about. i want top point out, this is done routinely in other cities. in san jose, los angeles, oakland and berkeley thanks to that lawsuit. it was routinely done in san francisco until about 10 years ago when john ram took over the planning department.

if you look at the records before that time, all of these contaminated sites had either an e.i.r. at that point, they changed the process to try to ram through projects as fast as possible and evade ceqa review. that practice is illegal and it has to stop. sb37 will ensure that it stops, will ensure we get adequate review for two or three projects a year. the cost will be minimal. the 20 days is well worth the time. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: i see you ms. gibson. i will let supervisor mar go first and we'll move back to you. >> supervisor mar: i wanted to kind of respond initially to msd

her points. i think the one point that ms. gibson made in her presentation, she's made it to me in our communications about this resolution and sb37 that resonated, the common sense exemption seems like it would apply to projects that are very minor like the window changes and decks modifications and even if it's on a cortese site. these are projects that don't involve any soil disturbance. i appreciate mr. drury's further explanation on this issue. i think planning department proposed amendment to that submitted to senator cortese, which would say that projects

that have no soil disturbance should be exempted from sb37. if common sense. also, i don't think that's clearly the types of project are clearly not the intent of sb37. supervisor preston and i had an event with senator cortese and he stated clearly what his intent was with sb37. it's really about about projects like 1776 green street and others in our city. in my district, five out of the eight recent multiunit developments are on cortese list sites. they're all former gas stations. these are the sites where we're building housing on these sites. even though they went through the maher program, there's still important for them to do that

further environmental review through ceqa. particularly because the maher program doesn't provide any public oversight and that's the purpose of ceqa. having a more public oversight and public pross for the -- process for the environmental review. i wanted to state that. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. supervisor peskin, i will let ms. gibson respond and loop back around to you. you're on mute. >> thank you. through the chair, i would like to just note that this matter what is considered a discretionary project under san francisco's city charter is an important one.

thank you supervisor more for your recognition for our explanation on this matter. i do think this is a fundamental issue, i would request that our city attorney please state for the record what is the nature of discretionary permits in san francisco. because it is not as stated by richard drury, with all due respect. >> supervisor melgar: okay, if one of the supervisors ask that question, we can do that. i will go to supervisor peskin. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: let me start out by concurring with notion that as to identified sites, whether they should be able to get off the list or not. by the way, you can recontaminate a site and you should get back on a list

whether it's the maher list or cortese list or the superfund site list. this is a society that has contaminated at the cost of human -- by the way non-human health. a huge amount of properties, many of them on military sites of which we have a couple city and county of san francisco and in cases of what we're talking about as to 1776 -- 1776. when you have capital involved and somebody wants to build on that site, we want to do it in a way that is safe. number two, as mr. drury said, there's an opportunity for the public to participate. in the case of a categorical

exemption, very few of them as you colleagues know, you got to be hyper vigilant. the negative declaration process, i do agree with mr. drury, doesn't cost 30,000-dollar. not on its face, not relative to city fees. that part is -- that part not true. the fundamental notion here is the public has a little more time to see that and respond to that. a huge amount of time, 20 days. here is what i want to say through the chair and to ms. gibson. i'm not asking for legal advice after 20 years of doing this, i don't need legal advice. i know the difference between a ministerial and discretionary permit. i understand my charter. what's happening here is that

eight out of 11 members of the board of supervisors, if i did my math right, have affixed their names to supervisor mar's otherwise pedestrian support for a state bill. that is good for all 58 counties for the state of california. i'm rather amazed by the fact that department of city planning went and lobbied the state legislature, granted they allegedly stop on or about aprie aware of supervisor mar's legislation that was introduced a few days earlier. this is not what departments do when the elected officials who represent the public, amendment of them -- eight of them supermajority of the board affix their name to a piece of public

policy in another body. we are the policy body of the city and county of san francisco. i wanted to put those things out there. i'm not trying to be rough here. i'm just calling balls and strikes. the adamants that the department has displayed in this particular instance is rather shocking if not outrageous. with that i will cede the floor. >> supervisor melgar: thank you supervisor. ms. gibson, did you have further comment? >> yes. thank you supervisor melgar. i did want to state for the record that the $30,000 minimum fee that we were speaking of is the planning department fee for cost of environmental review set by our fee schedule for preparation of a negative declaration. it goes up from there based on construction cost. i want to make that clear for the record. >> supervisor melgar: thank you

ms. gibson. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: [indiscern ible] if it's three or 130, that's way too much money. we should knock those fees down. we're knocking down fees over everything else. >> supervisor preston: thank you ms. gibson for clarifying on the fee. i do have some clarifying questions. that was one of them. thank you for answering that. this is $30,000 in planning department fees as supervisor peskin is pointing out set by the department. can you give me a little more explanation on the number? you showed the very dramatic chart of all the districts, hundreds of these sites. i'm imagining if the public is

as confused as this supervisor to the distance between mr. drury's explanation of two or three sites here and your statement around 182 in my district alone, my question on that, i'm looking for a deeper dive on that slide where -- can you clarify is that 182 sites on the cortese list all of which got common sense exemptions and which fit into, maybe there's a breakdown -- fit into things that don't disturb the soil, things where there's already been sites that are cleaned. what is 182, describe what that is and how that breaks down. >> yes, thank you supervisor preston. the slide if you like we can bring it back up. the cortese cases by supervisor

district that shows district and number of case. these are the number of cases that are on the cortese list where there has been an investigation of a contaminated site. it's possible sometimes there's more than one case on a given property. in mostly, -- [indiscernible]. my colleague is available here to parse these numbers if you have further questions about that. >> supervisor preston: i'm trying to understand the relevance. this is 182 site in my district that's been on the cortese list. what is that supposed to tell us? i don't see these are not necessarily sites -- these are sites where in theory if someone proposed one of these things you're talking about, sb37 might

impact them? >> the cases that -- each one of these sites, these cases, whatever the property is that case is associated with, whenever the owner of that property wishes to receive a permit, they would not be able to get a common sense exemption under this legislation. if it was a property owner on any of those 182 cases, they would not be able to get a common sense exemption for some of the simple over the counter permits. each requests gets kicked an we have to do a negative declaration, $30,000 fee. >> supervisor preston: got it, thank you. if you could clarify again the discrepancy between your remarks

and the types of projects. if someone is, for example, repainting the exterior of their house or engaged in a minor kitchen remodel but does not disturb soil, are you saying that every one of those permits? >> no answer the question, again i would respectfully say that it city attorney is much better prepared to explain the nuances of our city charter and the types of permits if they are available if you wish supervisor preston to hear the legal explanation for that. >> supervisor melgar: let's do that. we have a city attorney. this is a pretty crucial point and i want to make sure that we understand the department's position of what is ministerial, the definition what ministerial

project is versus what mr. drury was saying in how we can resolve it. who do we have here from the city attorney? >> i believe deputy city attorney kate stacy. >> hello, kate stacy from the city attorney's office. as supervisors already know, building permits are discrepancy in san francisco. the ceqa guideline makes the assumption that building permits are ministerial unless otherwise provided by local ordinance. both are charter and are codes, make building permits discretionary and appealable to the board of appeals. just to close the loop on this thinking of little bit, i think that the exception to the

exemption of the ceqa statute, ceqa guideline section 300.2 talk about projects located on a site. even though a project may not have soil disturbing activities, they would be located on a site that's on a cortese list on it state level. i think that's the connection that ms. gibson was trying to make. i think that's the concern with the amendments to sb37 that even where there may not be soil disturbance because of the language of ceqa, any project that is discretionary in san francisco could be subject to that exemption. cy -- i hope that explanation is

helpful. >> supervisor preston: can we get specific here? if i'm repainting a house that is on cortese list property, i get an over-the-counter exemption, does that require a designation of a common sense or other categorical exemption or not? >> the permit is over the counter, it is theoretically, it is discretionary because it could be appealed. the city would have broad discretion over the building

permit. i think that given the language of the exception currently that the city could not apply a categorical exemption to a project that's located on sites that that's on the cortese list. i think the change that sb37 makes is to close off that use of the common sense exemption separate from a categorical exemption. >> i can respond to your question about the painting. the key is that projects that require a permit would be considered to be discretionary. the types of scopes of work that are generally over-the-counter permit, painting is not in that grouping. things like reroofing, pensioning, -- fencing,

retaining wall, window replacement. anything that would be affecting the environment that is outside the building's interior. those are the kinds of things considered discretionary subject to ceqa. >> supervisor preston: thank you. if it's okay with you, you would love to hear from mr. drury. i feel like there's some policy issues that folks can disagree on. i lick -- i like to get the fact here on whether the practice is currently being used with respect to certain kinds of non-soil disturbing projects and the impact that sb37 would have on those. my hope that is not a subject of dispute. >> supervisor melgar: i will be happy to have mr. drury come back up to give us his interpretation. i think that this is the crux of the difference in the interpretation of that word

ministerial. mr. drury? >> thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: if i may proceed mr. drury as a member of this committee please. >> supervisor melgar: if we can come back to mr. drury supervisor preston asked for his answer. >> supervisor peskin: with supervisor preston's indulgence. >> supervisor preston: defer to the chair. >> supervisor melgar: go ahead supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i think we do have some statistical alleged look into the crystal ball differences. mr. drury says if sb37 were the law it will be three neg decks, ms. gibson says it will be 130

neg decks. i stand corrected on the fees which we would greatly reduce. that's not the issue here. the issue here in my opinion given -- i'm not doing conflict what's set forth in state law and under our charter. i'm doing facts. the facts are anybody can appeal to the board of supervisors at any time. we get, i don't know, we can ask a clerk. may be we don't hear every week and maybe once a month sometimes twice a month. out of the realm of i think correct me if i'm wrong ms. gibson, over 10,000 that you issue every year, we get less than 25.

>> over 5000 exemptions a year and yes, small number are appealed. this law will require that negative declaration to be declare. >> supervisor peskin: i get that. under current law, which is not totally unique to san francisco, any building permit can be appealed to the board of appeals. maybe my 11,000 number can be appealed to the board of appeals. is that number of appeals is equally, i believe. i think it's over 10,000. they meter wednesday. they get appeals from department of public health and all kinds of stuff.

what are you guys freaking out about. >> i don't know if that's a question [laughter] >> supervisor melgar: did you want to answer that ms. gibson. >> i take it as a serious question. the alarm is genuine that we are expressing and it is fundamentally about the fact that the legislation would require us to do and by our calculation, it is in the order of magnitude of roughly 130 negative declarations a year for projects that would qualify as common sense exemptions. i suspect that the difference in the order of magnitude in the numbers that mr. drury provided is because mr. drury is asserting that over-the-counter permit projects that do not disturb the soil are not considered projects under ceqa.

that's a big difference and accounts for large number of projects that get swept out based on our understanding from the city attorney. >> supervisor peskin: through it claire, to my colleagues on that panel to mr. drury to ms. gibson and planning department, my fundamental point remains the same. which is, you still as a member of the public, have to go to relatively extraordinarying lengths to actually exercise your decreasing rights to bring on these things either to board of supervisors or board of appeals. it happens almost none of the time. i would much rather err on the side of caution and do no harm and no cancer clusters, than worry about whether it's three or 130 neg decks. this is not about development.

why are we having this fight? >> can we go to mr. drury? >> supervisor peskin: i'm done. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. do you want to repeat your question supervisor preston? it was about the definition of ministerial. >> supervisor preston: yes. what does it apply to and getting clarity on that. >> thank you supervisors. with all due respect to city attorney kate stacy who is an excellent lawyer, the plain language of the statute is controls here. ceqa defines certain things to

be ministerial and certain things to be discretionary. other things that might be up to interpretation, buildings permits are in the statute 15268 says building are ministerial. city of san francisco, i know we're special and we're different, we're not that special. we're still subject to ceqa which is a state law. that state law says building permits are ministerial. it city -- the city will not require people to be ceqa review when they want to replace their windows. it's like a classic floodgates argument, we're opening the floodgates every time someone wants to paint their house, they have to do an e.i.r. it's not going to happen. no one addressed this kikes, sierra club versus sonoma. it's a 2017 case, first district court of appeals. it said not all discretion

triggers ceqa. it has to be the type of discretion that allow the city to impose conditions to address ceqa environmental impacts. in that case, it was a grading permit on a winery explanation. the court said the grading permit doesn't allow them to take action to reduce air quality impacts, which what they were complaining about or impacts to streams nearby. it's a semantic coincidence that we use that word decision -- discretionreview in san fran. other cities might call it an appeal. they would call it d.r., discretionary review. it addresses things like design,

color, height, things that are not -- wouldn't allow the planning decision to impose conditions on the cleanup. it doesn't trigger ceqa. that's a published case. no one addressed that case. i think it really -- statutory language is clear. two, the case law is clear. no one is going to do ceqa when they replace a window. >> supervisor preston: one other question -- this is something mr. drury referenced previously. on the existence previously of a different policy and that switching under the director. was it previously, sound like ten years ago or before, the policy that the categorical exemptions were not used in

common sense exemption was not use on cortese list properties. that switched. >> supervisor melgar: ms. gibson you're muted. >> sorry for that. lisa gibson environmental review officer. thank you for that question. i'm glad you are asking. that change that occurred is related to what i referenced in my presentation how in 2013, this board, the board of supervisors amended the maher ordinance to incorporate what were previously routine

mitigation measures that were necessary to address potential significant impacts due to development on contaminated sites. the standard for issuance of common sense exemption is that there has to be seen with a certainty there can be no significant effect on the environment. previously, we would find that if there's a risk of contamination or presence of contamination on a project would be disturbing the soil was often the case that mitigation will be necessary to investigate and then further remediate as needed based on the department of public health and their future work. we worked with the board and public health department and amended the maher ordinance to incorporate those measures. subsequent to that change in our regulatory program, we no longer -- we're finding potential for

significant effect because with implementation of our law, there will not be a significant effect. >> supervisor melgar: supervisor preston, did you have another question? >> supervisor preston: i don't. i want to echo the sentiment that supervisor peskin noted just around the narrow number of appeals. i understand some of the issues

and concerns being raised. i do think that with all due respect to planning department that the statement that something like sb37 would increase paperwork, i think i ts zero benefit. it makes me concerned about sweeping statements like that and what i look at what the actual impact here, it seems to be in supervisor peskin's work we're freaking the department out i think was his

characterization. those are more observations, not questions. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. supervisor preston. i support this resolution, of course. thank you supervisor mar for bringing it to the table. i'm also empathetic to wanting to hole to the content that mr. drury other advocates have in passing this at the state level. i would like to suggest an amendment to the resolution. i understand that supervisor mar is in agreement in that is on page 5 lines 12-15, add along to

the clause that would read resolve that the san francisco board of supervisors affirm general support for senate bill 37. adding the word general as it moves through 2020-2021 legislative session in the state of california. we would add, urges amendment for senate bill 37 to make it clear that the exception to the use of categorical exemption or common sense exemptions for site on the cortese list applies only to work involving soil disturbance and not to minor alterations no-soil disturbance and -- excavation. >> supervisor peskin: i heared words -- i hear the words. the way we've historically done this, when we do resolutions like this, either support or oppose or support with

conditions. with all respect to the original maker, supervisor mar, the notion of general support i won't vote for. the notion of support with conditions, i personally one of three on this panel could support but would do them differently. i actually believe, i think the science set forth, there are cases, by the way 1776 green could be one of those cases. without soil disturbance, you could have a threat to human health and safety. now, a mitigation that may have been realized by negative declaration might have been a concrete cap. i for one, given the very

limited nature of this, would not agree to it has to only be soil disturbance and things above the ground. i think those words could be crafted in a way that -- i'm not mr. cortese -- that improve his bill and may align with one of 58 counties. there are definitely cases, where it's not just soil disturbance. i can't support that amendment as written. by the way, we haven't gotten to public comment. >> supervisor melgar: let's go to public comment. no one has any more -- okay,

thank you. let's go to public comment. >> clerk: thank you. checking to see if we have callers in the queue. if you have not done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. you will need to press this once. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicate that you have been unmuted. we have 13 listeners with 7 in queue. maria, please unmute those callers please. >> caller: i'm the president of speak, sun set parkside education and action committee. speak would like to thank supervisor mar for the sb37 press conference. the planning department's opposition to sb37 seems to focus on the term discretionary

review. even though discretionary review under ceqa is not the same as discretionary review under requirements. ceqa does not apply to ministerial action. ceqa only applies to discretionary actions. they only require building permits and therefore are not subject to ceqa. the court upheld the discretionary action only if there's environmental impacts. speaking on my own behalf, the planning department attempting to make these bogus arguments is just embarrassing. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm bradley angel. i'm the executive director of green action for health and environmental justice. i want to thank supervisor mar and all the other supervisors

who come together to support this important resolution and important legislation at the state level. it is pretty obvious to not only our organization but our many members in every corner of city and county of san francisco as well as many of the members of the board of supervisors. something is seriously wrong at the planning department. it seems to us that this is just opposition to this resolution and this legislation seems to be the latest episode in their continued promotion of the financial interest of developers over the health and environment and safety of the people of san francisco. you all know, very involved, for example at treasure island where the planning department and the health department thinks it's okay for low income people of color and subsidized housing to

live literally on top of or a matter of feet from radioactive toxic waste. that's not okay. same goes with hunters point shipyard and even parcel a where hundreds of homes have been built where no radioactive or toxic waste should be but it is. in closing, we appreciate the effort of supervisor mar and the other supervisors in this effort. i think the discussion was really important and informative. we urge you to approve this resolution and support the legislation to protect public health and the environment. thank you so much. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon supervisors. this is charles head. i'm the president of the

coalition for san francisco neighborhoods for all san francisco neighbors, not just some neighborhoods. we're concerned for neighborhoods in treasure island and hunters point that other speakers referred to. last thing we need is to have cortese spots become hot spots. that seems to be the trend that has been happening. we think that trend should be reversed. we urge you to support sb37, the last thing we need is more cancer clusters in our neighborhoods. thank you very much. >> clerk: next speaker please.

>> caller: good afternoon supervisors. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. this bill i think gets at something that we're all thinking about and we're all concerned about. making sure that our environment is more productive uses is done well and safely. that's something that everybody shares in terms of a goal to achieve. the department in ms. gibson's presentation brought up a lot of of concerns. i hear supervisor preston's comment about the absolute to her statement. adding more process and more paperwork without -- [indiscernible]

>> clerk: mr. smith -- we may have lost him. i will pause the timer for mr. smith. >> we lost him. >> clerk: okay. let's go to the next speaker. if he pop up again, we'll loop back to him. >> caller: good afternoon, i'm travis parson i'm associate director of occupational labor and health. thank you for having me here today. the labor health and safety of north america is a fund that supports the labor international union of north america. i would like to thank the vice president and coordinator from

the northern california district for alerting me about the important matter at hand. as mentioned by previous speakers during this discourse, laborers are many of the front line construction workers on these job sites. we're in strong support of senate bill 37 for cortese contaminated sites. we feel it's in support of working families. [please stand by]

>> public health impacts of developing on contaminated land. we all know it's an important tool to learn about the health impacts of a project, but also to voice concerns and ensure proper clean-up and mitigation. i'm quite frankly astounded that the planning department which talks about, quote, that they will place equity at the center of its policies and strategies and then they would

exclude processes whereby the public has the right to learn and participate. that's [inaudible] to equity. so, in short, i urge you to support the resolution and the legislation sb37. thank you, have a good day. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. kathryn howard, sierra club. the sierra club supports sb 37. often attacked by city government. what is ignored by criticism is sequa has a range. it helps protect public health. the process has been used to help cut climate pollution, and protect open space and wild

life habitats. cqua holds government agencies accountable and i think in the current discussion, it minimizes court challenges projects by allowing concerns to be addressed early in the development process. and i think that supervisor peskin pointed out the very low rate of appeals in san francisco. enactment in 1970, cqua gives all san franciscans and last, but certainly not least,

development is part of the decision making process. the sierra club supports sb37. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker please. we have eleven listeners with six in the queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. it's shocking that in a the health and safety of residents is dismissed using exemption that's hardly common or sensible. once again, expediting permits trumps everything in this town

including the health and safety of the current and future residents. sb307 and this resolution in support of it is long time overdue. for those of us with the permit application process, it's no surprise to see the planning department taking a stance against this change. as mr. drury pointed out earlier, planning routinely uses a get out of jail free card to developers. the examples that ms. gibson provides are nothing but hyperbole. changing windows and doors in an existing building is not an issue. however, converting gas stations to housing is and that's what's at steak here. of course, the planning's overuse is not limited to contaminants at its site. a developer is aiming to cut 27, i repeat 27 mature cypress

trees to build twenty-four luxury three and four bedroom condos on a site that requires massive excavation of bedrock that is suspected of containing asbestos. and, guess what, the planning department has given this project class 32 categorical exemption. now, i'm not sure if this side is the quotation side, but it's definitely one of those chad x's that's routinely granted by planning and is anything but common sense and shouldn't have been granted. >> your time has elapsed. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have nine listening and five in queue. >> good afternoon. my name is george footing. i'm with the san francisco land use coalition and i want to pose in support of sb37 and its

accompanying resolution. first, i want to say the planning department argument is disingenuous. you cannot place public welfare for the convenience of the city planning department. it seems john haems legacy seems to live on. the environmental quality act may not be exempted from that it's shame on planning and

endangering. the city of san francisco has granted numerous ceqa exemptions over many years to be constructed on sites. this practice is in correct violation of existing law. now quote unquote common sense ceqa exemption has been repeatedly violated by san francisco and developers to abuse ceqa. please support the sb37 resolution. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi all. good afternoon supervisors. here today for the land use transportation committee. my name is dr. heidi redow and i'm calling on behalf of a larger coalition.

i'm also a resident of district 4 and i'm a mom. while the future of the great highway or better known the great walkway is not on the agenda. i wanted to instruct comment. the board of supervisors approached a decision point in the coming weeks for keeping the great walkway. >> clerk: madam, we have to stick -- we have to keep your comments to the items on the agenda. unfortunately, general public comment is not taken on at committee. so if you can redirect your comments to item number 2, to the california state bill, otherwise, we can take your comments tomorrow at the board meeting. >> thanks. yeah. we'll be sharing a petition of over 5,000 signatures then. thanks so much. >> clerk: thank you so much.

>> [inaudible] >> clerk: hello. you've been unmuted, speaker. i don't think this person knows they're on the line. so let's head to the next speaker, maria. >> thank you, madam clerk. >> good afternoon supervisors. cory smith calling back in. my line dropped. am i okay to make closing remarks. >> clerk: yes. we'll set that again for you. go ahead. >> thank you. thank you very much. as i was saying, the staff overall concern is concerning to us. they're the experts on this. they really ride into the nitty-gritty details and two

other kind of thoughts that have come up. number one, this doesn't seem like it's actually going to be impacting too much new development or our members for the projects themselves, the impact is actually going to be more work and more paper work and more process for the environmental review staff which, in turn, clogged up the entire system making it harder and make interesting take longer for environmental analysis to be done on other projects that we really do want to be making sure are being done. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, mr. smith. next speaker please. and this is noted to be the last speaker, madam chair. >> good afternoon. my name is leticia yang. i'm here representing a group of neighbors a group site that was approved earlier this year

for a luxury apartment complex. 1776 green is a prime example of why ceqa and sbthirty-seven are necessary. planning one to great lengths to avoid ceqa review in this case. first, it was only through a public records request that we discovered this. is it then proposed multiple and when we informed them this was illegal, they tried another project. well, d.p.h. closed and yet another attempt to avoid qeqa review. contaminated soil at the site despite the fact we had a pending appeal in front of the board of supervisors. i listened closely and heard no

reasonable explanation for why a project that involves the excavation of about 1300 cubic yards of contaminated soil should be exempted from ceqa review. this is not about replacing windows or windows. planning has argued that ceqa review will be costly and time consuming but there's no justification. most people wouldn't have a time where the resources to challenge the development of a toxic site, nor should they have to. sadly, we don't need to look very far. californians should be able to rely on our state and local government to ensure future projects are developed in a safe way. this is a matter of public health and environmental justice and we strongly urge you to adopt this resolution. last but not least, i want to express my sincere thanks to supervisor mar, lee levit and

the members of this consider for your support of sb37. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. madam chair, that concludes the list of public commentors. >> chairman: thank you very much, madam clerk. before i go back to you, supervisor mar, if it's okay, we still have mr. ryan mickel here from the senator's office. now that you've sat through this hearing and listened to the may as to how we apply it in our code, can you talk a little bit about it in your process, but are you open to perhaps clarifying that in the

legislation? >> yes, can you hear me chair? >> chairman: yes. >> great. thanks for that. this piece of legislation just passed through this first policy committee and considering the common sense exemption, we wanted to first close the loophole and then, you know, try to see what came out of the woodwork in terms of implications for small projects. targets that move tons of soil and and pose a significant risk to all throughout this hearing and is open to considering what could be an exception to this prohibition to this common sense exemption.

this is going to the appropriations committee within this month and then the floor of the senate pretty soon afterward and then it has to go through a whole other house of policy committee and the floor. so there's a lot more time to work on the bill and we have been actively engaging with a lot of other cities on some of the concerns raised today and, you know, especially the soil excavation point is something we're sensitive to as well and the senator and i are already working closely on so we're definitely open to, you know, trying to make this the best policy possible and make it work for everybody. hope i answered your question. >> chairman: thank you so much. supervisor mar. >>. >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair melgar. i want to thank all the speakers on public for sharing

your perspective and support for the sb37 resolution and thanks again, colleagues, for this opportunity to have this hearing on the resolution. i'm glad we actually did send it back to committee because i feel like this is a very substantive and constructive discussion about these very important issues and, yeah, again, thank you for your support of this resolution in sb37 and ensuring redevelopment on sites that are on the cartazi list contaminated sites and able to undergo the important environmental review under ceqa that they're supposed to or they really need to to ensure that we're protecting the health of our residents, of the workers and protecting our environment. again, for the neighbors, the construction workers, the environmental stewards and future residents of this project.

that clean-up plans are going to be properly done and through sb37, we can ensure a legacy of housing commercial buildings and infrastructure that's safe for generations to come. i appreciate your consideration of the amendments that i presented today. they're non substantive according to the city attorney and i would appreciate your support moving this forward to the full board. >> chairman: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: so there are amendments in which we are all cosponsors and there are additional amendments by chair melgar which were acceptable to the chief sponsor which i raised some concerns about which i do have an alternative concept about, but i just want to make sure that my understanding relative to the mar amendments are different from and do not incorporate the

melgar amendments. >> supervisor melgar: i however am totally open to any suggestions that you have. i would like to be a unanimous vote for our vote at the board. >> supervisor peskin: so i am happy to move the mar amendments and make a suggestion on madam chair, your amendments. >> chairman: okay. >> supervisor peskin: two separate items. >> chairman: yes. so do you want to make a motion. so you've made a motion on supervisor mar's amendment. so we vote on that before we do anything else? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> chairman: madam clerk, can you please call the roll on that. >> clerk: yes. on the motion that's stated as vice supervisor peskin

[roll call] you have three ayes. >> chairman: supervisor peskin, do you want to make another suggestion? >> supervisor peskin: i do want to apologize this is our -- computer staff has tried to fix this a couple of times so if supervisor preston's on the roster, my chat box is broken. they keep on fix interesting and i'm going to try to get it fixed again either after this meeting or tomorrow morning. so if i'm interrupting, supervisor preston, i sincerely apologize, but i can't see the chat box and i just took a screen shot of it to send to john c. so he might try to help me land this plane; but i think rather than the words general and very specific notions that

madam chair you set forth, i think and this is not actual language, this is a conversation starter that if we because i set forth three things. we support, we oppose, and we support with conditions. i think here given the fact that i suggest on page 5 that we work on language that the board of supervisors in support of sb37 as it moves through the legislative session and the state of california and remain committed to working with senator cortez on the appropriate amendments as expressed in the land use committee of today i think ryan

heard the issues and i think that might be a fourth path. so it was language like that which i kind of just stated which is we support the bill, but we will continue to stay engaged in amendments that reflect today's hearing. fundamentally we support the bill. >> chairman: so get rid of the general. we support the bill. you know, we urge. >> supervisor peskin: yeah. get rid of your conditions. >> chairman: yeah okay. is that a motion? did you make? >> supervisor peskin: well, i don't know. madam clerk can you repeat whoa i said and [inaudible] expressed sentiments eastern. >> chairman: supervisor preston, did you want to weigh in on this?

>> supervisor preston: yeah. thanks, madam chair. i guess having heard the statement from mr. mickel, i do wonder and this is to you, madam chair, as the author of that sort of addresses the concern to the extent that, you know, on the amendment, in your mind on the amendments because part of my concern about crafting a sort of urging of amendment is i remain a little unclear as to whether an amendment is or is not needed to and i think it's an important discussion to have. i think we're all in agreement that if swapping out your window is now going to trigger something different, that's not the intent of senator cortese. i don't think it's supervisor mar's intent. but i am not clear that an

amendment to sb37 is needed and that's the question. so i don't object to the way supervisor peskin has reframed it, but i also do wonder, chair melgar your thoughts in light of mr. mickels' representations whether we need language in here to this effect or not whether we are satisfied that those concerns will be raised as this moves through the legislative process. >> supervisor melgar: so how i heard mr. mickel is that the senator's intent is definitely no not include these small things that don't have this impact. so i am okay with supervisor peskin including in the resolution and urging the senator as the process moves through to take into account

the conversation and concerns raised in this committee to address those issues. so i'm okay with that and not in urging the amendment because i think that the intent is as you say, we're all on the same page. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: yeah. i think we're all landing in the same spot. i think that the staff to senator cortese set tons of soil. and so you can have, i mean, it doesn't take that long to get to 4,000 pounds and tons. so, when he said, hey, this, my boss's intent is to deal with tons of soil, that could be 1776 green street, i hope that's true. i don't think 1776 green street should have been had a common

sense exemption. it did not make common sense and by the way the san francisco board of supervisors led by the district 2 supervisor kathryn stefani came to that decision i believe unanimously. >> supervisor melgar: okay. so we are moving the resolution as amended without the second motion -- without the second set of amendments. >> clerk: okay. just for clarity. so just supervisor mar's amendments that were submitted earlier today. okay. on the motion so we would like to make the motion to move it forward as recommended. supervisor peskin.

>> chair melgar, i think we requested we'd send this forward as a committee report as well because it's time sensitive through this legislative process. >> clerk: that's right. thank you, supervisor mar, for pointing that out. so on the motion to recommend as a committee report [roll call] you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, madam. >> clerk: . do we have any other items on the agenda? >> clerk: that concludes the business for today. >> supervisor melgar: thank you all. we are adjourned.

>> san francisco parks, golden gate park transforms into one of the greatest music festivals of all time, let's journey, inside, outside land. ♪♪ >> to this, our 6th year doing the outside lands and our relationship with san francisco, rec and park. and we work very closely with them in the planning and working very closely with the neighborhood organizations and with the city supervisors and with the city organizations and with the local police

department, and i think that the outside lands is one of the unique festivals in the world and we have san francisco and we have golden gate park and we have the greatest oasis, in the world. and it has the people hiking up hills and down hills and a lot of people between stages. >> i love that it is all outside, the fresh air is great. >> they have the providers out here that are 72 local restaurants out here. >> celebrating, and that is really hot. >> 36 local winerries in northern california and 16 brewers out here. >> and you have seen a lot of people out here having a good

time and we have no idea, how much work and planning has gone into this to make it the most sustainable festival in the united states. >> and literally, in the force, and yeah, unlike any other concept. and come and follow, and the field make-up the blueprint of the outside land here in golden gate park and in the future events and please visit sffresh parks.org. >> the hon. london breed: well, first of all, thank you so much for being here. i'm san francisco mayor london breed, and i just want to start this press conference by really acknowledging what happened in atlanta, georgia. many of you heard about the

asian american women who were killed, unfortunately, and targeted in atlanta, and i've reached out to mayor lance bottoms to express our condolences. as many of you know here in san francisco, we've seen a rise in hate crimes against our elderly asian community, and i want to make it clear that we won't tolerate it. san francisco will continue to support and uplift our asian community. at the beginning of this pandemic, the xenophobia and racism against our asian community has been really horrible, and we are all struggling here. our city has been impacted tremendously. now is not the time to continue to accept hate against a particular community. now is the time to uplift and

to support and to embrace. we are almost in a good place one year later after the city had to make one of the hardest decisions it ever had to made to shutdown, to shutdown to save lives, when we didn't understand exactly when this virus meant and how it could impact us. but you, you trusted the leadership of the city. you trusted the department of public health. he trusted the science. and you didn't completely understand. i know i didn't, either, but i was grateful. i was grateful for the city of san francisco because our quick action is being praised

throughout the city for saving thousands of lives. but there was sacrifice. there was sacrifice because so many people did lose their lives. there were people who did not make it through this pandemic. there were businesses that had been around since before i was born that did not make it through this pandemic. there were people who struggled because of the decision we had to make. we recognize our children have suffered, our seniors in isolation have suffered. our mental health has suffered, but san francisco, we've been in this place before. we've struggled before. there was a pandemic in this city 100 years ago.

there was an earthquake in 1906, there was an earthquake in 1989. there were things that we have experienced before, and we came back. when you think about it, we came back because we didn't drown in our despair. we took the tragedy, we took those experiences, and we used those experiences, tragedy, to make san francisco a better city. when you think about it, the embarcadero -- some of us remember that freeway that was down there. remember the freeway on thompson in the fillmore-western addition-hayes. those neighborhoods used to be dark because of the shadows of

the freeway and the noise and the pollution. we took a tragedy in the 89 earthquake and created an opportunity, an opportunity to make embarcadero and the city's waterfront one of the best anywhere, and we will do the same with covid-19. we will take what we have experienced this past year and use it as an opportunity to address issues around inequity that have only been lifted higher as a result of this pandemic. but let me tell you another thing. we should be proud of what we've been able to do. when this city shutdown a year ago, there were still people that had to go to work. there were people at san francisco general who had to

sacrifice their lives. when you look at the data in the city and county of san francisco of the workforce and who contracted the virus at some of the highest rates, it was people who work for the department of public health. they put their lives on the line in order to take care of those who were sick. it was our muni drivers, our grocery store clerks, our police officers, our firefighters. our essential workforce in this city had no choice but to show up because we were counting on them. today, as we think about that year and all the work that we've had to put in in order to get to this place where we are today, i'm grateful. i'm grateful to the workforce here in san francisco, and i'm grateful to the nurses and the

doctors and the clinicians and the janitors and the h.r. representatives and all the people who still showed up. i'm grateful to the people in the nonprofit and still provided rental assistance and made sure those who were suffering from covid and could not collect unemployment, that they had the resources that they need. when you think about all that we've done in this city, we built a testing operation from scratch, mary ellen, leader of the emergency response in this city. we built testing capacities from scratch. we had to pull together resources and p.p.e. we remember those times when folks were just doing everything they could to get by and in need of n95 masks and

other things in order to serve the people at san francisco general. look at where we are now. 33% of san franciscans over the age of 16 have been vaccinated. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: 71% of those over the age of 65, our most vulnerable population, vaccinated. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: yes, we're still in this pandemic. i see dr. colfax shaking right now, like make sure you remind them we're in the midst of a pandemic, but we've conducted over 1.6 million tests since the beginning of this. almost 10,000 people were served through our hotel programs. 10.5 million meals and 2

million bags of groceries. the work continued. we came together. we supported people in san francisco. i remember early on, when i received a note from my neighbor that said if you need someone to go grocery shopping, you need someone to pick up medication, you need someone to do anything, or just need somebody to talk to, here's my e-mail and my phone number. that's san francisco right there. that's what we do. even despite the challenges that we face, we rose to the occasion, and we took care of one another. we all did our part, and it was hard. we didn't get to see our loved ones. we had to separate our kids, still struggling to get back into school. we sacrificed, and we made it through. we need a little bit more, just

a little bit more. as we look back on this past year, what i'm going to take from this is what an amazing future we have and how san francisco is going to continue to be more aggressive than it has ever been to address then equities in our city around health care, around housing, around unemployment. how san francisco is going to do everything we can to pour resources in our small businesses and keep our shared spaces program, our parklets, where our businesses and restaurants can continue to get back so they can eventually get back on their feet. what i'm looking forward to is that san francisco -- as much as my family drives me crazy, i miss them, and i'll probably spend a little bit more time

with them as a result of this, and i think you feel the same about your family and friends: a newfound appreciation for one another for what we've all been through together. so i know it's been hard, but there is hope. there is hope for a better future because out of those ashes, we will emerge stronger. we will emerge better as a city because we are still here, and we stand in solidarity with one another, getting through this crisis. so thank you to all of you who have sacrificed so much. the health care workers who couldn't go home and had to stay in hotel rooms away from their families and even their kids. the police officers, the firefighters, and as i said, the people who still showed up at those grocery stores and dealt with us complaining with

something being a different price on the shelf versus when they rang it up at the counter. the businesses that dealt with the resources. the folks that work at these hotels, the people that work at these shelters. so much work, so much sacrifice, and i feel good. i feel good not just because i was vaccinated yesterday -- [applause] >> the hon. london breed: i feel good because i see the city coming alive again. so as we begin to reopen one year later, let's just remember, remember all we sacrificed, and let's also appreciate all that life, all that life will bring us in the future as we come out of this

pandemic because it was worth it. it was worth it. 448 people tragically lost their lives in san francisco, but you also have to understand san francisco is one of the densest cities in the country, and we had one of the lowest death rates of any major city in the country. we were a model for this, and it has everything to do with you. people were wandering, well, how did you shutdown in san francisco? it wasn't because we did it early, it's because we have some of the best health care professionals in san francisco. if you get sick or something

happens to you, this is where you want to be, is san francisco general. the likelihood that your life will be saved is better than anywhere else in the world, and i want you to know that. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: so today, we celebrate, we remember, we get excited about the future, and we show one another support, because we're all in this together. we remember that all of us are sacrificing, all of us are dealing with something, and as we began to reopen our city, dr. colfax, hopefully sooner, rather than later -- dr. colfax doesn't want us to have any fun. he's like, well, i know the state said we can do this, but unfortunately, i'm going to hold off. but i did also say to you, dr. colfax, that i heard dr. fauci said, let's not move too fast,

and this has been one of the most conservative department of public health departments anywhere, so we do appreciate that because it has made a difference. so thank you to our essential workers, thank you to the san franciscans that sacrificed. thank you to everyone who will continue to do their part, and there will be a time where we will be able to come together again and actually talk without wearing a mask, and i am looking forward to the day when that happens. thank you all so much for being here, and with that, i want to introduce dr. grant colfax. [applause] >> well, good morning, everybody, and thank you, madam mayor, for your brave and bold

leadership throughout this pandemic. the decisions you've made have saved countless lives. your support for the public health department -- [indiscernible]. >> -- and the decisions you were forced to make -- [indiscernible]. >> okay. i'll loosen up. your support deep into the nights of the discussions we had, the decisions you made have indeed saved countless lives and helped the city weather the very worst of the pandemic. and i have to say, mayor, when this is over, i'm looking forward to a big part, and dancing with you, and shouting with joy, and raising our hands and celebrating that we made it

through this. and also, i want to take a moment to acknowledge the year of pain and suffering for so many, including the nearly 450 san franciscans who have lost their lives to covid-19 this year. my condolences to their families and their loved ones. in standing here today with you, mayor, and my fellow department heads, it's a profound and emotional moment for me. as some of you know, i came to san francisco in the early 90s as a resident here at this very hospital to fight hiv/aids, which as we also know, has unfortunately claimed thousands of lives in san francisco. and as we have seen with

covid-19, exploit the social, cultural, and economic fault lines of our society and brings more harm to people of color. if you had told me then, on ward 5-a, the old hiv ward, that we were pioneering the play book to fight covid-19 and to slow a pandemic 30 years later, i may not have believed you, but here we are. and while this has been an incredibly challenging year, it has also been filled with moments of hope, and even optimism. for me, the moments that will always stick with me are when, after the decision to shelter in place, those few weeks when we actually saw the curve flatten -- and i remember

people telling me, it's happening, and it took me some time, and finally, i was able to say to the mayor with confidence, we have flattened the curve. that's when we knew that interventions like social distancing, limiting gatherings, and masking, could slow the spread. we didn't know that at the time, and we showed that san francisco could do this together. and then, there was the morning that i read about the results of the first vaccine trials, and when the mayor asked me early on when we'd have a vaccine for this, i told her it would be a long time, and i was wrong, and i am so glad that i was wrong on this. as someone who started working at d.p.h. for vaccine trials for hiv/aids, something we still don't have an effective vaccine, it was so satisfying

that within a year, perhaps the fastest timeline in history, we would be able to protect people from this disease. in walking in here today, you see the lines of people getting their vaccine. and now, we have not just one, but three vaccines that are highly effective in preventing deaths and hospitalizations from covid-19. and i'll never forget the day, december 16, that we administered the first vaccines here in san francisco. the milestones i've described have been hard won and are owed to the people of this magnificent city. just like in the early days of hiv/aids, it's san francisco's spirit of innovation, it's compassion, and its refusal not to stand idle when the federal government failed in its leadership to make so much of a difference. as the mayor said, our covid death rate is among the lowest in the nation.

i could not be prouder of what we accomplished together. another part is the public health clinic and our partnerships across the city. our close collaboration from the outset enabled us to scale up programs and services quicker as we wrapped our arms around the city. and we have seen this virus take hold in communities where people have to leave their homes for work, increasing their exposure to covid-19 and who often live in larger households making it difficult to isolate from the pandemic. the d.p.h. and covid command, in partnership with our community partners, prioritized vulnerable populations in our emergency actions and response. we have come so far, but we still have farther to go, and we can go together.

to my colleagues at public health and covid command, this year was so difficult for you where you found yourself in learning curves where the stakes were so high. your compassion and diligent work for communities have raised the bar for supporting these communities in overcoming barriers to better health and economic outcomes. and, you know, the other day, i saw a patient in clinic at our positive health program, the building adjacent. she was 65 and an immigrant and living with hiv. today, her hiv is well controlled with meds. she contracted covid and recovered. in fact, the day i saw her, she had recently received her second dose of the vaccine. her story is striking to me

because she embodies san francisco's own story of surviving two pandemics. like so many of our residents, she is a testament to our resilience and the compassionate care that people can get in this hospital and this city. there are so many people to thank, including my colleagues on the frontline. i want to thank the deputy director of d.p.h., who is continuing to hold so much during this pandemic. [applause] >> to dr. aragon, who's gone onto the state, to be the health director. and for dr. susan phillips, who has stepped up in the role of acting health officer, and dr.

susan ehrlich, chief medical officer of this hospital. i want to think of us about the things that have come out of this pandemic. maybe it's the safe streets or walking down our neighborhood corridors. maybe it's having a new pet join your family, or maybe it's getting to go out with others. for me, it's dancing, and i look forward to going out and doing that. whatever it is, as the light at the end of the tunnel shines brighter, let us carry on the positive transformation of this past year that makes this city

a wonderful place. remember, mask on, stay strong, and get the vaccine when you're eligible. thank you. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you, dr. colfax. i'll believe it when i see it. he's the one i have to talk to every day, and he's always, like, well, we have to do this mayor, and i'm, like, why? i don't want to do that. and speaking of hobbies, i was -- before this pandemic, i had zero lives, anything in my place, and now, i have 31 plants. i don't know if any of you have any hobbies, but plants are my babies. that's my story, and i'm sticking to it. i just want to take this opportunity to thank the director of emergency management for the city. when you talk about our response to covid and how

challenging it's been, it's not only been here at san francisco general, but moscone center has really been ground zero in some ways for the emergency response. so many of our city employees who work in various departments, they've showed up as disaster service workers from the library, from d.p.h. and other places, and we embedded a whole covid team in this emergency response. so when we talk about getting groceries and services and everything we did in this city, everything we had to do came out of this whole operation managed by this incredible woman, our director of emergency management, mary ellen carroll. [applause] >> good morning. thank you, mayor. it has been a mayor that has

moved by so quickly and yet felt like an eternity. through it all, we were led by so many shining points of light. one of the brightest ones you just heard from, our mayor. our mayor, london breed. mayor, i want to thank you -- where are you? -- for your steadfast leadership and support, your vision, your resolve, and your compassion. [applause] >> it is what we all needed during this enduring crisis. [applause] >> and dr. colfax, thank you for your courage, your integrity, and your wisdom. i do not think of a -- could not think of a better partner to have during a pandemic. even when covid fatigue settled

in, and it has settled in, san franciscans continued to do the right thing for each other. i also want to recognize that this year would have looked a whole lot different if it weren't for the thousands of health care workers, many of you represented here. our emergency services personnel and our essential workers continue to come to work and risk exposure to help our beloved city. on march 17, a year ago, 2020, i was standing inside moscone center, overlooking third and howard streets, the day before the shelter in place order had been announced, and we moved from our very tightly packed, not very safe emergency operations center on turk street to moscone center. outside, the streets were empty, and it was, like, every person, bicycle, scooter, and car, had just disappeared. inside, however, it was a

completely different story. it was a hive buzzing with activity. we had veteran responders who had been working nonstop over the previous two months, and we also had hundreds of new, fresh faces. these were planners, election staffers, librarians, analysts, accountants, you name it, from other city departments, who were activated by disaster service workers. we had work to do. since that day, over 11,000 san francisco public servants have banded together to develop and implement one of the most expansive local emergency response shelters in the country. together -- and you've heard

some of these numbers already -- the covid command centers have tested 1.6 million tests, and we are at the top of the country for testing. millions -- [applause] >> millions of bags of groceries and meals for food insecure san franciscans, and we continue to do that. thousands of housing rooms for people who needed a place to safely house or quarantine or people who needed a safe place to shelter in place. we developed 3,000 multilingual posters, flyers, and health fact sheets that you will see all over this city. we engaged and developed health partnerships with our cities, and they have worked disproportionately -- with those populations disproportionately affected by this pandemic.

i have the number, 236,000 vaccines, but i'm sure it is more than that at this time. as we look back on all that we have accomplished, we need to remember why this matters so much. one of my co-workers shared this story with me. an older couple was sitting in the post vaccine observation area, holding hands, and they were both crying, with tears streaming down their faces. a staff person went over to ask to see if everything was okay. they smiled through their tears and said their grandchildren were born during this past year during the pandemic, and after an eternity of zoom calls and socially distanced visits, they were finally going to be able to hold those grandchildren close. so to all the essential workers that have struggled and

sacrificed, your work means something to this couple and to the nearly 1 million people we share this city with. so as we continue to vaccinate, set up to reopen and get on the road to recovery, there's still a lot of work to do, but in this year, we've grown smarter and definitely closer. and like the phoenix, that is the symbol of the city, as the mayor said, we will rise from the ashes again. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, mary ellen. i'm a doctor here at zuckerberg staff and trauma center, and i'm here to share a few words from the prospect of our essential workers. firstly, just want to thank

everyone who spoke up here today. i think that this is an incredible milestone, and so this is quite a huge honor to be able to share a few reflections. i think my message in just thinking about a one-year milestone of this pandemic is some of the things that mayor london breed already touched upon: remembrance, in terms of everything that we've gone through, the resilience that it took to get to where we are today, deep gratitude, which i think really resonated with me as our mayor spoke, and hope in terms of where we are right now. from the early days of not knowing what we were up against to the amazing professionalism and team work, to the sadness

of seeing our latinx communities disproportionately impacted by this pandemic, to the stress in terms of addressing second and third surges of cases here at zuckerberg san francisco general, this year has been a bill challenge for our klein -- big challenge for our clinical teams and our community. and i remember the tears. i remember tears shed due to facing so many unknowns related to this new virus. i remember the tears shed after a long day of work, when staff were coming and asking questions about how we were planning to ration our supplies. i remember the fears of not knowing how bad each surge was going to be, and wondering if we would see the coming flood

seen in other parts of our country and the world, and of course, i remember the tears of joy, pure joy, in sending our patients home to be reunited with loved ones, sometimes after many months of battling through illness here at our hospital. very proud to say we've cared for over 1500 patients during this pandemic, and this is a tribute and compliment to all of our tears, and serves as a source of pride to all of us here at zsfg. i'm deeply grateful for our hospital leadership, and i'm deeply grateful to mayor london breed and her team for the proactive steps taken throughout the pandemic, especially those taken one year

ago, at the outset. because of all of her swift action, we have grandmothers and grandfathers, we have mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, friends and loved ones who are here with us today. to our staff here at zsfg, i'm grateful for all of your hard work in addressing the needs of the community, and it's really taken all of our team members. i want to give a shoutout to our greeter and screening staff at all of our campus entry teams, to our facilities and management staff, to our pharmacists, our food and nutrition services, to nutrition management, to our

respiratory therapists and our rehab staff, our social workers, our eligibility workers, our clinical lab workers, who have done all of our testing, to our care coordinators, our bed control operators, our technology and information analysts who keep our electronic systems runs, our chaplains, our nurse practitioners and nursing teams, to infection control and infectious diseases, our staff and nursing assistants, and our physician and nursing staff who spent countless hours and hours in rooms when we didn't know much about this virus, caring to make sure that folks could recover. really, you are all some of the best clinical staff on the planet, and the survival rate -- i'm very evidence

based. the survival rate of our covid-19 patients is just one shining example of the incredible work that you have performed. thanks to you, over 94% of patients who came through these very hospital doors, we were successfully able to discharge back to the community to be home with their loved ones. so to close out, really, i just wanted to share a message to all of those that we serve in the community. we are hopeful, extremely hopeful, but the work is not done yet. we are here to serve each and every one of you, irrespective of race, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity, legal status or economic status. keep masking, keep washing your hands, keep using commonsense around gatherings, and maybe

most importantly, vaccinate, which is, like, our real way out of this pandemic. i'm going to say a few words in spanish for our latino community. [speaking spanish language] [end of translation]. >> your clinical health care providers here at zsfg know the toll that has taken on all of us, psychologically, mentally,

economically. we know the road has just begun, but we see the light at the end of the tunnel. we are here, and we are ready to support you. [speaking spanish language] [end of translation]. >> as we work toward closing this chapter in our lives, really, let's continue to work together and support each other so we can get to that light at the end of the tunnel as soon as we can, so thank you very much. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you so much, dr. ortiz, for that message, and thank you so much for acknowledging how many people in how many departments have had to step up and serve at this hospital in particular to address this challenge, and thank you for the lives that you've saved. i also want to acknowledge that our police chief, bill scott, is joining us, as well.

thank you, chief scott, for all that you do and that the san francisco police department does to keep our city safe. it really does take a village, and this is the village that held themselves together to take care of the people of san francisco. you should all be so proud of what you've been able to accomplish. it has made a difference, it has saved lives, and we're going to look back on this moment, and people are going to say where were you during the 1920 global pandemic -- what year? i told you i was up since 6:00 in the morning. where were you during the 2020 global pandemic? and so many of you are going to have a story to tell, and how incredible this city was and how we stood together. thank you for standing strong,

thank you all so much for your steadfast leadership and advocacy and work in keeping our city together. i'm so honored to represent you as the mayor of what i think is the most incredible city anywhere in the world. so as we reopen, let's get back to work. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: but we will celebrate soon. thank you all so much. take care. [applause] >> when i open up the paper every day i'm just amazed at how many different environmental

issues keep popping up. when i think about the planet i want to leave for my children and other generation, i think of what contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. ♪♪♪ clean power sf is san francisco's key way of fighting climate change by renewable energy and offering it to san francisco customers. i'm from the san francisco public utilities commission. the program came about with state wide legislation in 2002 to enable people to take more control over supplies. i first heard of the program when the organization was advocating to launch clean power sf. what i'm most excited about, it's going to bring 100%

renewable energy to my home and reinvest into renewable energy infrastructure and jobs. i had gone to a lot of street fairs and heard from the staff at the san francisco public utilities commission to sign up for clean power sf even before it launched. >> we learned about clean power sf because our sustainability team is always looking for clean operations. linkedin is the largest online network. there are about 530 million members using our site. in this san francisco office there's about 1400 employees working in roughly 400,000 square feet. >> after signing up for the program we heard about the san francisco program and learned they had commercial rates and

signed up for that. i'm the co-owner of the new wheel electric bike shop. we opened this store in 2012 and the new wheel sells and services electric bikes. 11 people work here in san francisco and our store is about 2,000 square feet. electric bikes are fantastic for transportation in the city, they're clean and green and you get places faster than any other form of transportation. it amplifies the power, it doesn't replace it. it makes it easier to get places by bicycle and it's so enjoyable and environmentally friendly way to go and more convenient in san francisco. >> clean power sf requires two products, green, 40% renewable and competitively priced with pg and e. for those who want to fight climate change more, 100%

renewable at $0.02 per kilawatt. >> i decided to go with the super greens, after finding it only to cost about $5 more a month to have super green, that's a no-brainer, i can do that. >> we were pleased that clean power sf offers the super green 100% for commercial entities like ours and residents for the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services for linkedin and now encouraging our employees who have a residence in san francisco to sign on as well. >> clean power sf buys its power from renewable plants that feed the energy directly into the grid. >> there's a commitment to

sustainability throughout the entire organization and this clean power opportunity reflects that. >> one of the wind farms we use is the shilo wind farm and that is large enough to be able to provide energy for up to 200,000 homes. >> our mission is sustainability, even though our bikes are minimal energy use, it still matters where the energy comes from and part of our mission in sustainability is how we run everything -- run our business. having the lights come on with clean energy is very important. >> the sunset reservoir has solar panels that take up about four city blocks covering the reservoir and the solar power generates energy for city resources and clean power sf for residents participating in the program. >> it was easy to sign up for the program, i went online to

cleanpowersf.org and i started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going to be switched over and it just happened. when i pay my bill, i still go to pg and e and i don't see any difference between now and a year ago. >> sign up online, just have your account number ready and it takes about two minutes and there's nothing to install. no lines are getting connected to your home. all the power goes through the existed power grid. >> we haven't had any problems with the switch over to clean power. >> it's super easy to sign up. our book keeper signed up online, it took about 15 minutes. nothing changed but now we have cleaner energy. >> we see clean power sf as a key strategy to meet renewable energy goal, we have a goal of 50% renewable energy by 2020.

currently we have enrolled about 86,000 customers across the city. about 20% of what we hope to serve in the future and in the next two years we'll offer service to all san francisco electricity customers. >> an easy way to align your environmental responsibilities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it and it doesn't really add anything to the bill. >> joining clean power sf is one of the easiest ways to fight climate change, receiving cleaner energy at low and stable rates, you're helping to support a not for profit that helps influence the energy grid and produce more production. >> i would encourage any business to seriously convert to the clean sf service. it's good for environment, business and the community.

>> you can sign up online our call and the great thing is, you'll have the peace of mind that you're doing your part in your household to help the environment. ♪♪♪ >> van ness avenue runs from market street to bay street in san francisco. south vanness runs from south of market to cesar chavez street. originally residential after the 1906 earthquake it was used as a fire break. many car dealerships and

businesses exist on vanness today with expansion of bus lanes. originally marlet street was named after james vanness, seventh mayor of san francisco from 1855 to 1856. vanness heavy are streets in santa cruz, los angeles and fresno in his honor. in 1915 streetcars started the opening of the expo. in 1950s it was removed and replaced by a tree-lined median. it was part of the central freeway from bayshore to hayes valley. it is part of uses 101. it was damaged during the 1989 earthquake. in 1992 the elevator part of the roadway was removed. it was developed into a surface boulevard. today the vanness bus rapid

transit project is to have designated bus lanes service from mission. it will display the history of the city. van ness avenue.

>> you know i've always wanted to do this job that drives my parents crazy we want to help people i wasn't i did not think twice about that. >> i currently work as cadet inform the san francisco sheriff's department i've been surprised 0 work within criminal justice system field i had an opportunity to grow within that career path. >> as i got into the department and through the years of problems and everything else that means a lot i can represent

women and in order to make that change how people view us as a very important part of the vice president you have topanga you have to the first foot chase through the fight are you cable of getting that person whether large or small into captivity that is the test at times. >> as an agent worked undercover and prevent external and internal loss to the company it was basically like detective work but through the company from that experience and the people that i worked around law enforcement that gave me an action when i came to be a cadet i saw i was exploded to more people and the security he was able to build on that. >> unfortunately, we have a lot

of women retire to recruiting right now is critical for us we gotten too low faster the percentage of women in the department and us connecting with the community trying to get people to realize this job is definitely for them our community relations group is out attempt all the time. >> in other words, to grow in the fields he capitalized any education and got my bachelors degree so i can current work at city hall i provide security for the front of the building and people are entering entering but within any security or control within the building and checking personal bags is having a awareness of the surrounded. >> there is so month people the brunet of breaking into this career that was every for easier

for me had an on the with an before he cleared the path for laugh us. >> my people he actually looking at lucid up to poem like he joe and kim and merit made they're on the streets working redondo hard their cable of doing this job and textbook took the time to bring us along. >> women have going after their goals and departments line the san francisco sheriff's department provide a lot of training tools and inspiring you to go into the department. >> they gave me any work ethics she spider me to do whatever he wanted to do and work hard at the intersection. >> if you're going to make change you have to be part of change and becoming law enforcement i wanted to show

women could do this job it is hard not easy. >> finds something our compassion about and follow roll models and the gets the necessary skeletals to get to that goal with education and sprirmz whatever gets you there. >> if this is what you want to do dream big and actually do what you desire to do and you can go vertebrae far it is a fast job i wouldn't do anything else. >> ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪

>> good morning. welcome to the april 16th our local agency formation commission meeting in san francisco. and, this meeting will come to order. i am supervisor connie chan. i am joined by our vice chair cynthia cuspollock and we're joined by commissioner gordon mar. the clerk for our commission meeting today is alyssa samora. i'd also like to thank all the staff at sfgov tv and i also want to recognize today our legal counsel is