>> 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. >> candlestick park known also as the stick was an outdoor stadium for sports and entertainment. built between 1958 to 1960, it was located in the bayview hunters point where it was home to the san francisco giants and 49ers. the last event held was a concert in late 2014. it was demolished in 2015.

mlb team the san francisco giants played at candlestick from 1960-1999. fans came to see players such a willie mays and barry bonds, over 38 seasons in the open ballpark. an upper deck expansion was added in the 1970s. there are two world series played at the stick in 1962 and in 198 9. during the 1989 world series against the oakland as they were shook by an earthquake. candlestick's enclosure had minor damages from the quake but its design saved thousands of lives. nfl team the san francisco 49ers played at candlestick from feign 71-2013. it was home to five-time super bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning

touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the 2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played with the beatles in 1966, the stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific rail park in 2000 while the 49ers moved to santa clara in 2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the

stick. (♪♪♪) welcome to the welcome may 4, 2021 meeting of the board of supervisors. madam clerk, please call the roll. [roll call]