>> good afternoon. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the may 17th, 2021 land and use and transport committee of the board of supervisors. joined by vice chair supervisor dean preston and and supervisor aaron peskin. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, madam chair, the board of supervisors

legislative chambers and committee room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to the statewide stay-at-home order. committee members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if you were physically present. public comment will be available on each item of this agenda channel 26 and sfgov.org are screening the public comment number across the screen. call the number on the phone that's (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 187 333 3238. again, that number is 187 333

3238 then press pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please dial star and then 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 radio. you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. you may e-mail myself the transportation clerk at erica.major@sfgov.org. if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be made part of the official file and forwarded to the board. or you can send your public comment through mail as well. finally, items acted upon today may appear on the may 25th board of supervisors agenda

unless otherwise stated. madam chair. >> thank you very much, madam clerk. please call item number one. >> clerk: yes. item number one is the temporary closure of liquor store in polk street neighborhood commercial district does not require new conditional use permit and affirming appropriate findings. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on the item should call the number on the screen. that's 4156550001 and the meeting id is 1873333238. and then press pound and pound

again. you only need to press starly to line up. the system will indicate you have raised your hand in confirmation. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your public comment. madam chair. >> chairman: thank you very much, madam chair. supervisor peskin, thank you for bringing this item to our committee. will you please leave your remarks. >> supervisor peskin: thank you supervisor melgar. this item is a piece of legislation that my office introduced in the past in the north beach commercial neighborhood district a few years ago after a massive fire in this case coit liquor and another spot they have temporarily relocated. and, this is a similar situation, but thankfully, it's

not a fire. the drug shop very similar to coit liquor was actually located across the street from this current location and then when that property was turned into a condominium development they moved to their current location on the northeast corner and that project has been approved for a large condominium developer and the good news is they will be able to relocate after a period of construction. construction is going to commence actually very soon and they have found another temporary location to relocate during the period of construction. everybody's doing good by doing well. i want to thank my chief of staff who's been moving heaven and earth to make this fit

within everybody's construction schedule and i want to that city deputy attorney peter millen for the planning department staff who brought it before the commission which recommends it, but actually had some much more expansive suggestions which i'm quite interested in, but given the fact that the city attorney has deemed many of those suggestions to be substantive and what i would like to do is to duplicate the file so we can start working with the city attorney and the larger community not just in the polk district, but potentially beyond to see if this is something that makes sense for everybody but with a little more process, so i'd like to send the item as is of course, subject to public comment as a

committee report and we can hear it tomorrow on the first meeting and tomorrow on the 25th at its second meeting before we break for the memorial day recess. so that's it in a nutshell and thanks to sunny and peter and audrey for their work. >> so, just to be clear supervisor peskin, do we want to hear from the planning department on the second file or should we leave that at some other time? >> it's totally up to you. it's actually dated may 14th and i'm happy to hear from audrey and the basis of their recommendations all of which were embraced as a suggestion to this body by the planning commission. >> chairman: okay. why don't we hear from ms.

maloney shortly if she's here and ready and willing to give us the wisdom before we go to public comment. >> thank you, supervisor. audrey miller from the planning department. the commission did recommend essentially two suggestions to the board. and so with that first suggestion it was the creation of a temporary use authorization for all legacy businesses as they are defined in the admin code. it would basically state that as a legacy business, or due to it would allow them to temporarily relocate to either any other location within the same zoning district or any other location outside the

doning district. the commission recommended that this temporary use permit for an additional two years maximum not to exceed a total of six years. all other permits by agency would still be required and if the location is to be rebuilt and the plan is for that legacy business to return to that location, this would allow that business to not have abandoned their use at the original location meaning they could move back without needing to seek new approvals or pay impact fees. lastly, the idea that this tua has followed the legacy business itself. that vacates their temporary space. the space would return to its previously engaged designation. we understand that supervisor peskin is on a timeline. therefore, we have just some

mechanical modifications that we would like to suggestion to the original ordinance. so for that original ordinance, we suggest extending that time limit from three years to four years and the temporary location use permit. the commission also requested that we clarify that the temporary liquor store location shall revert to its previous use upon termination of that occupation of the liquor store. we also wanted to make sure the entitlement process exempt to liquor store from this legislation and development impact. again, both that temporary location and their original location so long is that's occurring within the three or four time period. and, last, we requested that the term during construction of a development project that be replaced with the language due to the issuance of a demolition and new construction permit or

due to a force major on the site. that's all of the commission's recommendations and i thank you for your time. >> chairman: thank you very much ms. malone. if there's no more questions from my colleagues, let's go to public comment, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. if you haven't yet, please press star three. we've confirmed there's one caller with seven listeners. if you can unmute the first caller, james. >> linda chapman. well, i don't want to speak against, you know, allowing a liquor store to move to a different location in the polk n.c.d., but considering the

history we've had of total disarray, complete dysfunction that was caused by too many liquor license principalably of bars, clubs and such. i would have a concern if this were being extended beyond what we're talking about. in the polk ncd, it was not the liquor stores that were the problems but the concentration of liquor license which both the planning call and the a.b.c. law say they're not supposed to be more than a certain distance apart and because the planning commission during a period of time was very willing to authorize anything that came up, we reached the point where it was beyond chaos and specific locations were an example in the senior housing, the leland hotel. there was a use that was approved to and the next thing

they turned from one thing into another. the people living there were suffering. everybody went down. obviously, old chinese people didn't go down, but i went down for them. the seniors condo across went down and the planning commission just dismissed them. you know, the people who lived in the senior condo actually had to buy glass to cut off their bay windows. the street itself turned into chaos and crime. it was completely impossible for northern station to do anything. they said that with all the hundreds of drunks who were there and finally chief surrender intervened after i wrote him and he came out and heard a meeting and heard tapes of what it was like there. world cup soccer every night. so if it were --

>> clerk: speaker's time has elapsed. >> clerk: we have another caller in queue. we have nine listeners with one caller. jim, if you can unmute the next caller, please. >> hi, chris shulman residence and a nonprofit director in lower polk and i'm representing myself. i'd like to thank supervisor peskin, his staff, the planning department and others for this. this is very important. i also appreciate that the recommendation for the planning department are going to be carried on in a duplicated file and i look forward in participating in that discussion in lower polk which has a lot of vitality with legacy businesses including alcohol related ones, you know, legacy businesses could be effected in the future with development and i look forward to being part of the discussion. so thank you so much.

>> clerk: thank you. madam chair, that looks like the last speaker in the queue. >> chairman: okay. with that, the public comment is now closed. do we have a motion to send this out of committee without recommendation? supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i would be happy to make that motion. there are really two sets of recommendations that the planning commission recommended to this committee and this board of supervisors. one is the first that which is really kind of the larger public policy. the second are a series of amendments that i think this legislation could benefit from. unfortunately, they are mostly deemed to be substantive that would require additional time. so what i would like to do is

duplicate the file and i'd like to do so now and after we get back from the memorial day quick recess, make those amendments relative to the time limitation from three to four years which is substantive relative to having the use revert to it's pre-liquor store use and a couple of other amendments that i will have that be follow-up legislation so that we can at least get this development going and keep this legacy business on its feet. i just wanted to save that for the record. i'd like to duplicate the file and, madam chair, i'll come to you some time in june and still have the larger conversation. >> chairman: okay. supervisor peskin, because you're the expert on this, help me out. for the second duplicated file,

do we continue it to after the june -- >> supervisor peskin: yes. i would like to duplicate the file and make a duplicate of the file to the call of the chair. >> chairman: okay. sounds good. madam clerk, can you please call roll on the first motion. >> clerk: yes. to note, member peskin requested the original file be duplicated. no motion is necessary, but on the motion to recommend the original file as a committee report as moved by supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: as a committee report. >> clerk: as a committee report. [roll call] you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: and then i'd like to continue the duplicated file to the call of the chair. >> clerk: on the motion as stated by supervisor peskin to

continue the duplicate item to the call of the chair, [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chairman: thank you very much. that motion passes unanimously. full motion passed unanimously. so, madam clerk, can you please call number 2. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. item number two is urging the recreation and park department municipal transportation agency to work collaboratively on a long-term recovery and revitalization plan involving immediate neighbors and community stakeholders to reimagine twin peaks and identify resources to improve accessibility, safety, cleanliness, environmental sustainability and the ability to build upon a welcoming

environment for residents and tourists alike. for public comment, please call (41) 565-5000 to speak. the meeting id is 1873333238. >> chairman: thank you, colleagues for hearing this item today. earlier this year, i suggested a resolution along with supervisor mandelman and president walton urging the recreation and parks department to work collaboratively with other city departments and community members to develop a long-term plan to reimagine twin peaks and to make this an accessible tourist destination and a place for all residents to be proud of. while mitigating some of the

impact on the neighboring residents. looking at places like land's end, we know there's so much potential for twin peaks. maybe a warming hut, perhaps a cafe, sometimes a visitor's center or public arts space, there's just so many possibilities that would be an improvement over what we have right now which is not very well planned for and gets a lot of use. these and other amenities to only offer a sense of wealth of economic opportunity, but also offer consistent activity to help alleviate some of the crime opportunities that some of the neighbors have seen. it's sad to see this amazing beautiful location that's full of possibilities, always riddled with graffiti, litter, vandalism, and preventable crimes. i see the opportunity for us to

invest in the love in public open space. it is a tourist destination that attracts thousands of visitors. i know when i have family who come from out of town, one of the first thoughts always is at the top of twin peaks and my hope is making twin peaks not only accessible to people who have different needs and different accessibility levels, but also welcoming clean, enjoyable for our residents and for neighbors and for tourists. in the short term, we are working closely with the department, with the san francisco police department and with the mayor's office to identify more resources for park patrols and for other ways to prevent crimes. i am looking forward to general manager ginnsburg's

presentation on the inspiration parks department is drawing from to envision what twin peaks look-out could be and i'm looking forward to having a conversation about what kind of process we could develop to plan and to strategize and community members. i am grateful that over the past couple months, there have been hopeful conversations with rec and park and i'm also very sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors who are most impacted by what has been happening in twin peaks during the pandemic. i want to make sure that this is authentically a collaborative process. i have been hearing over the past week from many neighbors

who have been frustrated by the activities and the decisions that we have made as a city and i think that with an eye towards making progress and improvement, i want to make sure that all voices and that we come up with a process that's transparent and that works in terms of coming to consensus. without further adieu, i want to bring up general manager general park and sfmta. and director ginsburg, i'll turn it over to you now. >> thank you chair melgar and good afternoon supervisors. we have a short presentation that just does a little bit of context setting about some shared values and some opportunities about sort of what's what at twin peaks with

an eye towards recovery and revitalization in the resolution. so if i could -- i think i am joined by beverly who's going to show our presentation. great. next slide, bev. so as you noted, supervisor melgar, this presentation is in response to a resolution that you introduced along with your cosponsors supervisor mandelman and wallton to collaborate with other supervisor departments to imagine twin peaks and a little bit of context setting. i'll state the obvious. twin peaks is an extraordinary

location. it's one of the most visited national areas with stunning views of the city and in and around twin peaks, you can find a .7 mile trail that ascends the twin peaks and the

so during covid, the streets have been providing equitable space so people can be outdoors at a safe social distance. the end of march, twin peaks

was closed to properly social distance while enjoying the ability to do these sorts of activities. what you see here is that the space is really being widely used. we have been able to track our visitors. we're getting approximately 1,300 visitors a day around christmas tree point. and around 1,100 around the north side and panorama about 1,600 on that side. the pink triangle -- twin peaks has made the pink triangle its home for over a quarter century and the pink triangle was illuminated in honor of this 50th anniversary of pride.

next slide. very significantly, twin peaks is also the home of the mission blue butterfly. the habitat at twin peaks open space is a very diverse area and mission blue is a dangerously federally protected species and that only occur between southern marin and its habitat is very limited. twin peaks habitat and population is very important to the survival of the species. our department has been working for a decade to conserve the mission and in 2010, the species was on the brink of extension in san francisco and our efforts to protect and enhance the mission blue which is estimated to be at over 200 today, next slide.

over the pass several years there's an escalation in studying twin peaks. installation of crosswalks along twin peaks boulevard. new trails which were built earlier this decade and another round of trail improvements in 2017. here's a look at the current configuration of the site which shows the modifications to the figure 8. there you see on the photograph

and then you see the area that has been closed to car traffic to pedestrians and bicycles only and then you see the existing roadway southbound which is now actually going to be, it's two-way tracks that go back up to twin peaks boulevard. so next slide. some future projects up at twin peaks that are already in the works are some trail segments, one segment that will lead to crest line drive. this would be the backside of the figure 8 and then there is some work to improve parks and

transportation on the site that is also in the works. so some future ideas would be to continue working on circulation, trail access, continuing to manage our conservation and habitat restoration efforts, but to provide the kind of activity and to welcome visitors as you suggested, supervisor melgar, one would be to create a visitor's center. so the idea would be a place where we could actually, san franciscans can visit visitors and about the importance of the site to the region and, of

course, it would also be a place to actually study, acknowledge, recognize our first americans, recognize the ohlone tribe and give a 360 degree view corridor and potentially an educational center that would obviously include opportunities for employment, for, you know, economic development, etc. next slide i wanted to add any big

projects to improve the big blue. a visitor center that could help with trash management and offer, you know, partnership with some of the other trail impovments a robust sort of circulation plan that, you know, with a trail network really could serve to protect the habitat. one way to begin to sort of in terms of a path forward to try to test some of these ideas and projects would be while this conversation continues and funding is identified is to experiment with some temporary or pop-up spaces that could begin to create a centralized space that could provide the education or even refreshments that we speak of and begin to elevate and provide some structure to the space as a

destination space. next slide. we're going to revisit this. i already actually covered this which is, you know, there are wonderful opportunities to celebrate. both our environmental and natural and cultural history at the top of this site and to invest in an improved trail network and improve circulation network that would potentially mitigate some of the public safety issues that are well known up there, but that also needs to be balanced with the environmental conservation efforts. next slide. so how do you begin to get there? there are a variety of different strategies. it obviously begins with lots and lots of outreach which it feels like this and the hearing and the resolution is intended to, you know, to begin a conversation about the right

balance of activation and offering a space that's welcoming to visitors, but, you know, there are a variety of ways to get there. one is purely a philanthropic effort to either operate the site and that could be also with a nonprofit organization, if its focus is going ton on environmental education and national history. it could be some sort of blend and/or we could, you know, invite ideas from the public about how we might accomplish this. there are real costs here and there's a lot of communication, outreach, and process that needs to commence. i think some of the intermediate steps that we touched on very briefly with

respect to improve trail circulation and converting the backside of the figure 8 into the linear park are really important intermediate steps of the conversation continues but we are happy to work with this board and our fellow city agencies that are responsible for land management in the space and most importantly neighbors and community stakeholders on trying to achieve a balance that makes twin peaks even more special than it already is. and i'll stop there.

thanks. >> chairman: i love the idea of having some presence to remind us of the ohlone people and their stewardship of the land and the mission blue butterfly. it seems that those two things like having folks, you know, access the top of the hill when the pass is not very well kept is kind of an invitation to

trample on the habitat of the butterflies, so it seems like we really need to support the flowers, the native plants and the butter flies that way as well and it seems to me we should be talking about how do we have like an orderly way in which people access the top of the hill and minimize the impact of the land and, at the same time, remembering the stewardship of the land and i am wondering because in our conversations in my office with all of the different departments as you pointed out, it is multi-jurisdictional. who has right now jurisdiction of the pass going up to the hill from twin peaks boulevard because it showed had it as being under rec and park jurisdiction, but in your presentation, you talked about that being mta and dpw.

>> let me pull up my slide here that shows the circulation. i believe that we are managing, we manage the trail network, the roadways themselves are actual public works roads and traffic management is sort of overseen by m.t.a., but our job has been to try to manage the existing trail network as much as we can. unfortunately, this space was designed with not much historic reflection for pedestrian access. up until recently, there were very few sort of formal trails, there were some social trails up there, but it's a combination of all of us. and to add, supervisor melgar, we do have a million dollars in

the 2020 bond allocated continuing to improve the trail network up there. so we are moving forward with the trail and circulation piece. trails are really important in the space. that mission blue relies on the loop that's up there and that's a very sensitive plant as it is and we do need to keep people on the trail network or on hardscapes and away from some of the more sensitive conservation areas. >> chairman: thank you. and would there be opportunity for community input or for neighborhood communication and input into that $1 million bond at work to this trail? >> yes, of course. i mean, we engage in community design processes with all of our capital projects and all of our bond funding.

this is a -- specifically that funding is allocated for natural resource conservation and protected specifically. within that, there will be a lot of opportunity to receive community feedback about some of the specific needs both from neighbors and from natural resource stakeholders. >> chairman: okay. thank you. and your other ideas in the presentation about, you know, a conservation center or in informing hub. did we have partners how what the collaboration was of the department? what was the road map that was used? >> well, i think it sort of depends on the particular project and the moment. right. i mean, if, you know, the city were to make the kinds of policy decisions to rely solely

on public funding, that would be great, but often, particularly a project designed to inspire environmental education and stewardship and conservation really could attract some private support. obviously, any education center or visitor center would need to have an operations plan and a business plan that would be sustainable to keep people there and to operate the site and to be able to welcome visitors. so we're really at a beginning stage and i'm grateful to you and your cosponsors and the other supervisors on this committee for, you know, for just talking about it. we don't have a percentage road map, at this point. we, you know, i think we would all agree that twin peaks is a tremendous asset and access and circulation and public safety and are challenges as is the

fact that the state isn't particularly welcoming to those who do make the trek up there. these are things we could solve while celebrating and acknowledging that this land once belonged to the ohlone peak. >> chairman: so i had one clas question. my neighbors have talked a lot about access from tour buses. it has been an activity that hasn't been all that well regulated. there's big ones and small ones and so we have tried to put some order into it. are there eye tourist locations that are administered by rec and parks department that regulate access of buses or have any kind of system to put order in terms of like the

times that are accessed, the number of people, the size of the buses. any of those things. >> some of that is done in and around union square with a moderate degree of success. some of that is done in golden gate park with moderate degrees of success. i think if we looked to our federal partners, obviously, places that like you mentioned, supervisor melgar, like land's end do get a lot of tour bus operators. supervisor peskin i don't think the tour buses make it all the way to the top of as you noted

the fact that many want to see san francisco at the top of the twin peaks. >> chairman: thank you. colleagues, do you have any questions or comments for mr. ginsburg? >> i so. thank you chair melgar. and i want to thank you for bringing this forward and just appreciate the comments, general manager ginsburg around the early conversations on this because i think it's really important and i think a resolution helps on this for things that need to be baked. i did have a question just on the i think you had a slide around the possible approaches

sort of laying out some different ways to bring in the investments and revenue and managed the property in the future. you know, for me, it always raises a question, something you and i have spoken of just around potential privatization of public land in its various forms and my question is less about whether that's specifically the plan here because i think you answered it's to be determined and whether rec and park has any policies in place that would apply here and to other projects around private use of public land. like as this conversation goes forward, is there a set of guiden principals around when rec and park sees private use or management as appropriate or

is it just case by case. >> i think ultimately isn't determined by rec and park as it is community. partnerships, you know, are important, we have private entities like nonprofits offering in our self-help or the ymca operating in some of our clubhouses, we partner with all kinds of organizations on park related matters for the resource development that also remains and it needs to make

this is the very beginning of the conversation. so there are different ways to try to, if the objective is how do we and we need to make more investment in the trail network and some of the circulation and access issues that we've alluded to. there are plenty of gaps and pieces to that. we are still, you know, need to take, you know, utmost seriously our conservation work and our natural resource protection, but if there is an idea that having some type of activation at the top of twin peaks to provide some safety to be more welcoming to those who visit, there are different pathways to get there and, you

know, we want to choose something that's community appropriate that meets the values and objectives that's a lot of people would like to see up and ultimately, it would need to be sustainable one way or the other. >> commissioner: so forth as to a particular project. like let me just give you an example. is there a hierarchy, for example, of uses? you know, top choices, generally, we want a government facility run by rec and park. if that's not possible, we want

a nonprofit used. if that's not possible, we look to a private restaurant or is there some sort of guidance? >> yeah. so i think rec and park, land management responsibilities are fundamentally ours. we don't delegate our land management responsibilities. secondarily if you're talking about sort of buildings and programs, our work with our recreation work, our work with kids and the seniors, it is you know, we squeeze every ounce of public service delivery that we can as we've been doing with our delivery hubs and our summer camps and afterschool programs, but sometimes we do enter into mission aligned strategic partnerships with nonprofits to leverage the work that we're doing to provide either specifically culturally

competent work or whether a community stakeholder can offer something that we don't have the resources to provide and, so i mean that that is pretty it. we're not really in the direct provision of concession. that's not really in our business line. so, yes, we would entertain and we do throughout our park system private sector to support our parks with park appropriate concessions and amenities as every park system does in the country. we don't as the golden gate national we're not in the direct provision of concession type businesses but in terms of environmental education model, we would either probably tend to do similar to what we do with a lot of our other national resources type spaces and with our community gardens and urban farms and direct

service provision and some partnership with, you know, mission focused on profits. >> supervisor preston: thank you. and i just want to say i'm excited about some of the ideas that have been discussed and i want to mention the trail work which i think is an important part of folks enjoying the natural butte of twin peaks thank you. >> chairman: thank you supervisor preston. supervisor peskin, did you have any questions or comments for mr. ginsburg. okay. thank you very much. we will hear from matt lasky from mta and perhaps, mr. lasky, you can talk about the access to the park and the questions and ongoing issues we have about that. >> good afternoon, supervisors. can you hear me okay? >> chairman: welcome. i like the background.

>> oh, thanks. >> so in terms of access and tour buses, is that your question, supervisor melgar? >> chairman: that was one of the questions. so the question that i had asked director ginsburg was whether in other places we have set up systems of just to control access to a number of people that it gives one of the constant concerns that i hear from neighbors is that it is sometimes a very stressed use of that spot in that, you know, part of my desire is improving the overall infrastructure for twin peaks is to put some order in terms of like the number of people who uses it and so one

of my questions was are there other places where we do this successfully? and keep that kind of implicit to you but i also wanted to have you here for the presentation to talk to us about, you know, just more general access issues up there. so what director ginsburg talked about was that they have jurisdiction over management of the land, but that the mta and d.p.w. have jurisdiction over the access. >> okay. so, first, let me try and speak a little bit to the tour bus issue or the number of tour buses. so, before the pandemic, there was approximately 10 tour buses that traveled up to the top of twin peaks per hour, per daylight hour. so there was a range but on a friday, saturday, sunday, there's typically about 100

tour buses that went to the peak. and those all accessed egress from the peak portola side which is this other side. tour buses are currently not allowed to use the burnett gate. so they entered and exited via portola, and, currently, we're not seeing a lot of tour buses up there given the pandemic and tourism, but we think in the future, they will be back. in terms of limiting traffic or limiting tour buses, there are and speaking with city attorney's office, there are limitations that we have in terms of, you know, like a toll road, say, and that is governed

by the c.p.u.c. and so the california public utilities commission and so that is at the state level. however, we have some other tools potentially that we could consider like parking, you know, parking fees up at the top at christmas tree point road. currently, i think there are nine tourist bus parking spaces and 20 or so vehicle parking spaces up there on christmas tree point road and those are -- there's no fees or there's no meters associated with those. so there's potential there. i had another point. >> chairman: sorry to interrupt you. you know, so this hearing was

called specifically to ask the agencies to work together to come up with a plan to improve the infrastructure to make it more hospitable and amenable for the public. i would like them to work with the main one being recreation and park and you may have heard director ginsburg's presentation which really prioritized a couple things. one is sort of highlighting the need to preserve the mission blue butterfly which is so important to keep people off of the hill and off of areas that are not trail and the main access road. so with that in mind, you know, it seems like it's the utmost importance for your agency to work with that and sort of the things that you have talked about right now seem like just

the mta you know, this is what we can do because of the cpuc. so i'm very interested in the things that you can do if you work with the recreation and parks department to put some order into this, to make, you know, we want tourists to be able to have access, but we also want them to use the land gently and it is i think on us to put some order, to make sure that that is up and we haven't quite fought it through together. >> right. yeah, we're definitely interested in working our partners alternate rec park as general manager ginsburg mentioned. it is a public works roadway like 95% of the other roadways in the city and we m.t.a. are in charge of management of the roadway and traffic. so, yeah. i think our agency and the

m.t.a. board is open to collecting more community, you know, input as a future plan comes to be so promote the healthy use of the space. as you know, we just went through a process that kind of changed the roadway, but, i mean, it's not done, you know. we understand that twin peaks boulevard has undergone an evolution and can continue to do that in the future. i fully embrace the gentle touch on the natural environment up there and working with our partners up there and making sure that people have access both, you know, tourists and people visiting whether they're walking, biking or needing access via vehicle. so, yes, that is important to us as well and it's been an ongoing project and i don't

think it's going away. so, yeah. we're very supportive of that. >> chairman: okay. did you have anything else in terms of this presentation? >> no. i think if you have specific questions, i'm happy to answer them. we -- i'll just say as apart of the twin peaks for all project which was approved by our board several months ago, that opened up the portola gate and closed the burnett gate, we're doing an what you would do

to continue the collaboration in the project? >> i think we would continue. the challenging thing i think about twin peaks is it affects folks that live and work

nearby, but it's also sort of a regional destination both within the city and, you know, people coming from outside the city, so i think trying to get input from as many people as possible within that is really important and i think, you know, m.t.a. and rec and park work together on the m.t.a. led project the twin peaks project and i think we can continue to work closely with rec and park and the other city partners that are involved in this process. >> chairman: yeah. if there's other also other departments, so one of the things that we also heard a lot from the neighbors was the increase in crime when the other side of the hill was closed. i have had various conversations with captain

vadrini who is great and has had some good ideas. the great thing is that now that it is contained, i am interested in your department also working with the, you know, local police you know, captain to make sure we just leverage all recourses because there are some very common sense physical things that we can do to prevent things. so i'm hoping it will be rec and park and police and all of the other agencies that are involved in doing that. >> sure. yes. >> chairman: colleagues, do we have any questions for mr. lasky? no. okay. thank you so much, mr. lasky. so i think then ms. major, that we should go to public comment. i know there's lots of folks who are interested in the

planning of this. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to line up to speak for item number 2. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system has indicated you have. it looks like we have sixteen listeners with one person in queue. and, if you can unmute the first caller, please. >> linda chapman. i'm pleased to say that i was invited to participate in the survey that came online and i gave it a great deal of thought because i'm a third generation san franciscan and everybody needs access. the world does not and twin peaks does not belong to the neighbors even though they need to be considered, of course,

anymore than the arboretum or the panhandle to the rest of my family who grew up over there. one of the happiest memories of my childhood was how my mother who was a polio survivor when she got a car with hand controls would take the two little girls on the scenic drive preregularly. it was one of her great pleasures of getting out. then, later on, i had friends who lived on prague street and the husband would take us on a ride up through twin peaks, you know, and it was a joy and i have to say living on nob hill with all my friends typically have no cars at all. i really miss that experience. i'm hoping maybe when my niece comes down and we get a car for some other purpose we'll be able to do that. it's just so important that everybody have a chance to get

their old people, disabled people, people from other neighborhoods who have found it difficult. it's easy for me to go by lincoln park, but really not to get up there. i've been thinking about this transit. likewise tour buses, naturally, it's annoying to have any tour buses at all. the people come from all over the world and they do need to have an opportunity to do some of our beauties besides the golden gate bridge. >> clerk: speaker's time has elapsed. >> clerk: madam chair, d.t.s. confirmed that was the last call in queue. >> chairman: okay. thank you 0 much, madam clerk. colleagues, right before our meeting, i got a call from one of the neighbors in the town who was concerned about some of

the language of this resolution. we did not have time to incorporate his feedback but he is someone who is very important to the neighborhood and i want to be mindful of involving those neighbors who are most involved with this issue. so if it's okay with you, we'll make a motion to continue this to next week. the clerk tells me that there is one mr. speaker if that's okay. let's hear from the next commenter and, when we come back, i will make a motion that we continue this to next week. ms. major. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. jim, if you can unmute the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name isling.

i will not support the resolution 210088 without amendments. originally supervisor melgar wanted to build a simple warming hut on the top of twin peaks. now it is unknown what will be built. the r.p.d. usually does what the r.p.d. does. so i've read the san francisco economic recovery taskforce file report and have some thoughts regarding resolution file number 21008. this project is about generating revenue for the city's recovery. that's what it's about. s.f.a., r.p.d., and the real estate departments have no history of working or listening to the needs of immediate neighborhoods. to say otherwise would not be

supported by fact. please use the reason biforcation never even contacted our board which has sixteen people. so that's one thing. also, we have to understand that nothing can be built until there's information to know what traffic roads are, how many people you're going to have there, how are you going to handle congestion, and, of course, according to your own study, it says it has to be profitable. so please define the terms "community members" "community

stakeholders" and "immediate neighbors." thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. madam chair, we have just another caller that has popped up. jim, if you can unmute the caller, please. >> good afternoon. my name is denise la point. i walk regularly to the summit and along with my neighbors, we've worked hard over the years to promote, main, and safeguard the welfare of our neighborhood, protect our property, beautify and improve our formally peaceful neighborhood. sadly, since rec and park and m.t.a. closed off the east side of the mountain several years ago, the open space and park has been allowed to deteriorate due to the department's choice.

rather than the protected guided stewardship of the vulnerable site. despite the hue and cry of surrounding neighbors like myself. twin peaks is not a new treasure, it's a historic one. it's always been an activity, busy and desirable national and international destination. bikes, pedestrians, cars, and skaters and tourists have shared the road and mountain with very few incidents. now, it's chalk a block of competing interests to conquer the mountain, dirt bikes and the ever present car thieves preying on unsuspecting tourists and residents. environmental sensitive and spectacular open space resource in our great city.

thank you, supervisor melgar. let's end what's become a civic embarrassment. city departments must come together with the neighborhood. and most recently the burnett gate and restore our neighborhoods and twin peaks to its deserved splendor. onward. >> clerk: that was the last caller in queue. >> chairman: thank you very much, madam clerk. with that, public comment is now closed as i had said earlier, colleagues, i will make a motion to continue this item until next week. i will incorporate the upper half of language from one of the public commenters and supervisor preston, i would also welcome any suggestions you have about maybe prioritization language as well and, you know, if you want to

do that by next week, i would welcome that as well. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar. and, on that point i don't want to. my concern would just be i don't want anyone to draw conclusion from the resolution should it pass that the board has weighed in favor of a private use or any particular type of use and so these one of the things along those lines and made any changes to clarify. >> chairman: understood. thank you so much for that input, supervisor preston. madam clerk, will you call the roll. >> clerk: yes. on the motion made by supervisor melgar to continue the items to next week's

meeting, may 24th, [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chairman: thank you so much, madam clerk. will you please call item number 3. >> clerk: yes. item number 3 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to allow the certain projects to proceed while an appeal of the project's determination under the california environmental quality act is pending before the board of supervisors and modifying requirements for appeals to the board of supervisors for certain projects under ceqa. members of the public comment or those who wish to comment on this item, please call (415) 655-0001. the meeting number is 33333. you'll need to press star 3 once to line up. the system prompt will indicate

you have raised your hand to confirm you have lined up. the system will indicate you have been unmuted. >> chairman: thank you so much. we are joined by supervisor haney for bringing this item to our committee. we also have sarah jones from m.t.a. and the police department department. supervisor haney, would you like to share any remarks? >> supervisor haney: sure. absolutely. thank you so much chair melgar, vice chair preston and supervisor peskin for this today. i want to thank the cosponsor mayor breed for her leadership on this as well as the city attorney, s.f.m.t.a. and the planning department. the goal of this legislation is to prevent costly delays of

critical public projects that advance important vital goals. the changes would allow public projects that are either reversible or temporary or for clear safety reasons to proceed during appeal and for public projects where the board of supervisors is not the approval authority like closed streets to require more than one person to file an appeal. the appeals of the emergency trps projects during covid-19. in the second half of 2020, sixs.f.m.t.a. projects were appealed. all six appeals were filed by one or two individuals. all denied unanimously by the board of supervisors and as a result the city was slowed down from quickly responding to public health needs. the slow streets implementation and emergency temporary transit lanes and covid-19 emergency temporary bikeways had to pause as soon as the appellant filed

an appeal. these projects unlike private projects were crafted and approved through a transparent process. weeks lost when families and kids could have safe open spaces to play and getting more people out of cars and onto bikes and other modes of transportation. this impacted san francisco residents and goes against our city's visions bureau and mandates. environmental protection are already treated differently under our local ceqa rules. although these public projects are appealed less often, when they are, they have a huge impact on the city's advancement of the emergency process. any single member of the public can appeal to the board of supervisors for a ceqa

exemption determination. after an appeal is filed, these projects are put on hold until the board affirms the ceqa decision or the appeal is withdrawn. the legislation in front of us today will do two and simple necessary things. where the board is not the approval aauthority. for transportation related projects that are subject to the sole authority of the approval of the sfmta board, this legislation raises the threshold to file a ceqa appeal. a reasonable signature threshold would only apply to this limited set of projects where sfmta or the port has the sole authority to approve or disapprove the project and ensure that one or two people cannot continuously file this appeal of the same time

maintaining the opportunity to appeal. when appeals do occur, they require significant time, energy, and resources and as it sourntly stands requires the project to halt entirely until the appeals finish. this would apply and exempts a number of different types of projects where the board does have an explicit role. the limited number of projects which under the charter are also subject to public hearings and approval. these are projects that the city attorney has determined did not require ceqa appeals at all. we're not eliminating ceqa but we are requiring a slightly higher threshold to ensure there are a set of residents, more than just one person who has concerns about the project. secondly, this legislation allows approval and implementation to continue

during an appeal for certain public projects sponsored, public works, the airport, and rec and park are safe and remedial or to allow the existing use of public property to continue two temporary activities that will be removed or will cease within 180 days or reversible actions that do not involve physical construction, activities or are limited to be removed. these are the only two limited changes that this legislation seeks to make to our appeals procedures. i want to be clear that the practice of appealing certain public and private projects under ceqa is a critical tool for accountability and environmental protection. housing and other private projects are completely untouched in this reform.

the law as it stands for too many public projects have an environmental or public benefit and significant public process and review cannot be caught in costly sometimes fertiless delays. and ceqa appeals related to housing or private development while still protecting the right to appeal and the board of supervisors will on that process. this legislation has had strong support and received a unanimous vote of support at the planning commission. again, this is a very narrow common sense reform that would improve our ability while protecting peoples' ability to appeal in most other cases. before we start or i pass it on to the other folks here or pause for questions, i want to offer a nonsubstantive

amendment to the appeals and introducing this amendment on the and add the clerk or the board oversee this notice. these are nonsubstantive amendments. i want to thank all of you for engaging with us, for hearing us today i know folks have thoughts on this and opinions and i respect people's positions on this and look forward to the conversation. we have representatives from sfmta, sf planning, the city attorney's office and the march's office who i'm sure can answer all of the specific questions about the impact of this pretty narrow policy

change in front of us and thank you so much and i'll turn it back over to you, chair melgar. >> chairman: thank you so much supervisor haney. supervisor peskin, did you want to say something before we go out to the presentation by ms. jones. >> there will be a few words from the planning department and then i'm definitely anticipating some questions about, you know, the specifics on how this might affect our work at sfmta, but the planning department administers ceqa, so i'll turn it over to them. >> thank you, and, i'm told by mr. star that veronica flores

is doing the presentation. are you ready? >> yes. thank you, chair melgar. i just wanted to come on briefly to reiterate that this item became before the planning commission and they unanimously recommended approval of said ordinance and this really concludes the commissioner report. as ms. sarah jones stated earlier, she's available for questions as am i and thank you for your time. >> chairman: okay. that was short and sweet. thank you, ms. flores. ms. jones, did you have anything else to add? >> no. thank you. sarah jones planning director. am i coming through okay? >> chairman: yes. >> okay. it got a little patchy over on my end of things. i would just add that, you know, the sfmta takes the

requirements of ceqa as well as all other aspects of the complicated factors that go into decision making and further action. we take it very seriously, the ceqa process is very important and we are engaging in it and want to put that time and effort in where the situation's really warranted and so that we would, you know, see this somewhat higher threshold for filing of an appeal and want to make sure we do all the things

that the public and this board is looking for us to do while these processes are going through. >> chairman: thank you, ms. jones. okay. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair melgar. and, let me just start out with a respectful tone to the sponsor, mayor breed and the cosponsor, our colleague, supervisor haney, but really to underscore, i think fundamentally, this is a solution looking for a problem. and, if you look at the data that the planning department gave us and i'll drill down into that, i believe it proves that, if you look at a 5-year period of the total universe of the projects that were subject to analysis under the

california environmental quality act, over 20,000, there were less than one hundred in that five-year period that were appealed through the board of supervisors. and, by the way, that is not a function of local law, that's a function of state law. the state legislature actually wanted, elected officials who are fundamentally accountable to the electorate to be the backstop in adjudicating these matters. with that said, less than a half percent of the total projects are being appealed to this board and as we all know as members of this board, i mean, what do we get? one a month? we're having very short board meetings. our backlog is virtually zero. as long as i have been a supervisor since i was first elected 20 years ago this year, we scheduled them within chapter thirty-one time frames.

we have one pending appeal which we will hear on june the 8th which was recently appealed to the board of supervisors. but if you look at that universe of less than 100 projects that has been appealed in the 5-year period out of the universe of 21,000, a third of those 34 to be exact, more than a third were withdrawn of the about 50, 52 that we have heard in a period of a half a decade literally about one a month, the vast majority of those, the board of supervisors, i'm sorry, about sixty we heard in five years about 52 of them, the board of supervisors denied. i think some 8 we granted. but that's what due process is about. so we're all familiar with the two appeals that supervisor haney referred to last summer which, by the way, the board

expeditiously and unanimously denied those appeals, but because two people filed two appeals that we did not agree with and did not grant, i don't know why that opens up the door to the slippery slope of a faulting chapter 31 of the administrative code and i say that as somebody who was very involved in 2011 in what was really a much more inclusive policy discussion when supervisor wayner and many interested parties labor and environmental agencies and we did chapter 31 of our local implementation ordinance. this is being done in a piece mailed fashion and there are

some some things that can be done. if all we're getting is during the covid emergency there was a few week delay because of those two appeals that i referenced, we could create language that says, you know, all bets are off during, you know, a state of emergency. [please stand by]

>> and if folks think that that analysis is incomplete or incorrect, they can actually appeal to the ultimate body board of supervisors that is accountable to the electorate. if they think that the e.i.r. wasn't complete. i know it's a pain in the butt to once a month have a one-hour or two-hour hearing, but that's what we do and get paid for. i note that ceqa was created as a means of addressing these projects. not on that level.

ceqa was meant to be a check and an informational tool on the power of government to cause environmental harm. had we had ceqa in the 1950s, had the agency been subject to that level of environmental scrutiny of impacts, i posit to you that there would have been an avenue for now the thousands of displaced people, the thousands of historic homes that were wrecked. there would have been a check, but as it was the board of supervisors was fundamentally disempowered. let's look at the san francisco international airport. a city agency wanted to fill two square miles of the san francisco bay. it was environmentally detrimental. what was the backstop?

what was the only power that the board of supervisors had? it was ceqa. we were able to stop that ruinous project. in hindsight, and i'll tell you this is one of the proudest things that happened to me in the generations i've been in and out of government was when the then-airport director john martin told me years later that in hindsight we had made the right decision, not only for the financial well-being of the airport, but the physical well-being of our planet. i appreciate efforts and support efforts to cut through bureaucratic red tape and friction where it's necessary, but i also want to appreciate the very tough avenue that really a handful of people avail themselves of in having the courage and being able to take

the time as uncompensated members of the public and, by the way, spend what is not an insignificant amount of money. it costs $665 to bring one of these appeals to the board of supervisors. that's not chump change for the average person. it takes a lot of guts and time. if you hire a lawyer, it takes more money. that's why we see so few of them. the fact that we had two appeals that we didn't agree with, it seems, as i said at the beginning, to be a solution searching for a problem. i've gone through some of the high-level numbers and i've spoken a little bit to the slippery slope and the notion that this is the camel's nose under the tent. and i understand that supervisor haney believes this is narrowly crafted. but ceqa has been under assault

by the same developers and capital interest in sacramento year after year and it's a shame to see that same assault at the local level for what is truly not a problem. and the letters that we've gotten, including the letter from richard dreary, he brings up two instances, both of which i've been involved in, two of which this board was recently involved in, which is that when something is not brought for appeal on a temporary project because of the way section 31.19 of chapter 31 of the code is written, it can't be brought subsequently. that's exactly what happened in the case of the temporary one-year ferris wheel becoming a

five-year ferris wheel. that happened in the case of the google buses. so if we want to have that conversation, let's have it holistically. let's shop this to the entire community and not do it piecemeal. this is not just about the m.t.a. numbers. as supervisor haney said, this is all public projects taken and on page 4, section 2, starting at line 14 going to line 2. this is public works and rec and parks. this is not that narrow. if you look at that language and this is the language about where a project can continue while they're awaiting a hearing, which as i said there is no

backlog, it's sub-2 or subc says this can't be removed or reconditioned without damage to the site. there is no standard for what that means. at any rate, i think fundamentally ceqa is a very important law. it has not largely gotten in our way. it has helped people make projects better and to mitigate it. yes, democracy is time-consuming and messy. that is the best process that we've got. i don't think it needs fixing, especially for a universe of 21,000 over half a decade. and to the assertion made by director tomlin that i take

exception to that it is unsupportable that these appeals usurped this. as a matter of fact, one of the documents in this file, a public records request, asking for documentation as to the hundred hours and no documentation was forthcoming. if you look at the code in 31, it indicates that that is the actual cost for performing the activities for these appeals, as certified by the controller. so -- and then, look, again, this notion of having a 50-signature threshold, what's that going to do, knock 96 cases

down to 88 cases? i mean, it seems like it's a barrier to entry or what is difficult for the public to enter which is why this is so seldom entered. and then lastly -- and i understand that, given the nature of the attorney-client privilege of advice that we've all received, i'm limited in what i can say, but i can put a question to our attorney pearson, which is this. is the proposal to require 50 signatures legal under state law and can you speak to the litigation risk if this legislation were to pass? >> deputy city attorney ann pearson. i would be more than happy to schedule a time to meet with you

and answer any questions you have about legal risk in a confidential way. >> alternatively, ms. pearson, should this committee or the full board desire it, if we are all in receipt of the attorney-client privileged memo, we could discuss it in a closed session. >> i'm not aware that there are grounds for a closed session right now. i'm not aware of any litigation risk or threat of litigation. i'm not area of any such grounds right now. i don't need a briefing, as with the attorney-client privilege, understand the nature of that privilege. i will leave it at that.

i think this disempowers the public. it disempowers the board. if we want to have this conversation in the broader context of ceqa and chapter 31 and involved all of the stakeholders and involving that piecemeal, that would be the right way to proceed. those are my two cents. thank you, madam chair, for your indulgence. >> chair: thank you very much. supervisor preston. >> thank you. i will keep it short. i think a lot of what i would otherwise have said my colleague peskin has summed up on the

concerns of the problems, to the extent there is one. i am certainly influenced by many years of state advocacy work in which every year there are attempts to undermine ceqa which is one of the most important environmental law in california in my lifetime. i do concur with supervisor peskin's comments and i think the data that's not really in dispute, just around the infrequency of these appeals. i do want to express and appreciate supervisor haney and mir's efforts to thread a needle and to isolate certain categories of projects where there might be some consensus that ceqa as applied could be

problematic. i just don't see it, frankly, in the actual -- not only data, but the individual projects that we're talking about. i think there is an existing emergency exemption, which has been used in the state of emergency and which is available and as supervisor peskin noted in the few appeals that aren't meritorious get addressed. i think if there are procedural delays or problems that need to be addressed in terms of scheduling and timings and how we hear these in the conversation going forward, but i think to impose a 50-person signature requirement and to allow projects to go forward pending appeal, the two main prongs of this do posed significant problems, i believe,

and barriers to the effective use of ceqa. the one thing i do want to highlight that was in mr. dreary's letter, there is a very serious issue around these pilot projects, these 180 days that have been used as noted, both in the ferris wheel context, google bus, and just so everyone in the public understands, essentially if the project can proceed under this legislation during the pending of an appeal, it makes it move. no one is going to bring an appeal even meritorious for a project short term like that. the project gets converted or modified into something longer term and there is no right to appeal that to the board.

so i have a very serious concern about the potential misuse of pilot projects as a way to deprive folks of being able to have the review that is called for in these projects. the last thing i want to say is for me in dealing with ceqa, which is i think a core environmental law, it weighs really heavily on me that the sierra club and environmental organizations are not in support. frankly, i had questions when this was first introduced, but i was eager to engage with those groups to see if there might be some common ground or some way to move things forward that those groups would be supportive of. but it's something that weighs heavily to think about moving forward a change to ceqa processes that's not supported by the environmental advocates, who i believe are really the champions of ceqa and its

important purposes. i leave my comments on that. i look forward to public comments and other comments from the sponsor. >> chair: thank you very much, supervisor preston. i see your name, ms. jones. i'm going to make a few comments and move back around to you. i would just say that this is a really interesting moment for ceqa in our city and i think also for our state. some of these things apply [indiscernible] -- and i think that ceqa was a very important, ground-breaking law. supervisor peskin alluded to if we had had it 50 years ago some things would have gone differently. i also think that ceqa i have observed as an activist for

affordable housing and a bunch of other stuff has been used to challenge affordable housing, to challenge projects that would move us towards greater, more sustainable, less carbon-dependant transportation. in my own district there was lots of talk about environmental stuff being, you know, prioritized and 17.5 acres of parking building affordable housing. we this morning got an appeal for a project that has caused -- the aging infrastructure has caused considerable flooding on wawona and 16th avenue in my district.

in the p.u.c. there are infrastructure improvements. we can ameliorate the situation in terms of stormwater drainage and it's being appealed by one person even though the community has fought for years enduring multiple flooding episodes at that corner. i think that 50 signatures is something we in the community organizing would do all the time when we're organizing when folks have $650 and the community doesn't to file an appeal against affordable housing against a whole number of things. i think the threshold is really not that high. i would like to hear from the sponsor of this legislation

supervisor hains haney. i hear the appeal that the 50 signatures are submitted. so i don't think that this is a weakening of ceqa. the board of supervisors will still get to weigh in and the example that you presented with the airport, for example, you would still hear and folks would come up with signatures to be able to ask, but if you could clarify that, supervisor haney, i would appreciate it. >> can you clarify this. >> the question was in supervisor peskin's comment he seems to be saying that the

appeal process was really important in stopping some of the excesses of government and he cited the examples. but the legislation the way i understand it wouldn't stop the appeal process. it would just heighten the bar of how to get there, all of those appeals. >> all of those appeals could still be heard and it's only in terms of the 50-signature threshold is only for certain types of sfmta projects where we are not the final approval authority and under the law we are given, according to the city attorney discretion determining the standard in those cases and that's why we're able to do that in those cases. that doesn't stop appeals at all and some of the examples we're given definitely would not be ones that would be affected at all by this reform. this is a narrow reform on a

narrow set of projects and intentionally so. they are over the past few years ones where there are egregious examples of slowing down the projects. this is very narrow and it still maintains in all cases the right to appeal. >> chair: thank you, supervisor. supervisor peskin. >> i'm not sure why supervisor haney is responding to comments that i made. i would like to clarify for the record the actual comments i made or intended to make which is what i said or intended to say is that this is increasing the barriers to an appeal. i didn't say it would stop an appeal.

what i said is based on the data that we do have, 96 appeals of private and projects, of the projects 96 have been appealed, 34 of them are withdrawn. and what i said is, okay, if you create this additional barrier to entry -- additional broors to entry because i associate myself with the comments made by supervisor peskin in the letter. the legal appeal because of the fact that the project would be ongoing. when you marry that together with the 50-signature threshold that i said was that that 96 would be a lesser amount and i hazarded the guess of 80. i didn't say zero.

i want to clarify the statement that you made on my behalf. but i do want to say as somebody who had amend ceqa to this board, i am the appellant of supervisor haney respectfully through the chair of the treasure island project. i amend it after the project. i appealed it when there was much more data about the level of hazardous materials. by the way, the board of supervisors, under the leadership of my successor denied my appeal. we have since come to learn that there are a whole bunch of radiological contaminants on that island even the "san francisco chronicle" says it is true. bringing that appeal was very,

very difficult. it took me most of that time to write that appeal. i didn't have staff. i didn't have anybody i paid. so now you want me to go running around spending a day or two getting 50 signatures instead of writing what i have to put in that appeal, all the documents i'm required to get under chapter 31. i lost that appeal. you're only recourse is to go to the board. that 50-threshold signature, whether or not their meritorious, we deny them. it's no skin off anyone's back.

this is what we get paid $150,000 for. that's all i have to say. >> chair: thank you, supervisor peskin. i apologize if i put words in your mouth. ms. jones, i saw your name on the roster. did you want to clarify anything? >> yes, thank you. i just want to provide a clarification about the other portion of the legislation having to do with moving actions forward while an appeal is pending. so an appeal has already been filed and chapter 31 says that all actions and decisions by the city need to stop before that appeal is heard. normally that is not much of an issue, but there are situations where it would be really

advantageous for us to move forward with certain small actions that are dealing with something that might not be an immediate health and safety issue, but needs to be done for scheduling reasons to be responsive around specific issues that transit is having, that we're having around vision zero, things like that. that is what that piece of legislation would accomplish. it sounds like there's been a little bit of a confusion with the whole matter of projects that are temporary projects or pilot projects and i just wanted to clarify that this legislation is being able to put paint on the ground, posts on the ground, do the bird surveys, whatever actions to keep an effort advancing. we're not going to do any of that without a compelling reason

because we would be doing it at risk. so we are spending city money. we run the risk of having to reverse that. it's only -- it will only be occurring when there is a really good reason to do so. >> thank you, ms. jones. if there's no other comments from my colleagues, let's take public comment on this. i'm sorry, supervisor haney. >> i just wanted to be clear about a couple of quick things. one is i understand there have been and are attacks by developers on ceqa at the state level. with our own planning

department, this is narrowly crafted. it's going to upset a small level of appeals by design. these are overwhelmingly for health and safety that are reversible or a critical transportation project and that is by design. this is not a broad, sweeping reform to ceqa nor is it intended to be, but this is one that will impact a small set of projects that as ms. jones can share with you does have a significant impact on slowing their implementation and increasing their costs. i do think it's important in those cases to make small changes. i'm not in favor of supporting these broader ones that you referred to. i want to say some of the examples, whether the treasure

island appeal which i appreciate your advocacy on, supervisor peskin, or the example of the commuter shuttle, none of those would be impacted by this reform. a lot of the examples that have been given are ones that were intentionally excluded from being impacted here. this is a very narrow set and it would be great if ms. jones can also describe the actual impact in these small set of projects when they're appealed, on their ability to implement them and the cost and the energy and the resources taken for that. respectfully, and i appreciate those critiques and concerns. [ please stand by ]

>> has an impact on our ability to have these projects. >> certainly, when an appeal is filed, it means that the sponsoring department, the planning department and the city attorney's office are all involved in preparing what needs to be a really thorough response to the appeal even an appeal that doesn't raise a lot of points needs a pretty robust response and so that's where there's a hit on staff time, and then, of course, further working through the whole process and the hearings and

everything that is leading up to the appeal hearing. that's, you know, pulling staff off of other work. i think it was particularly impactful during the pandemic when, as you all know, everybody in the city was really working, you know, incredible hours and putting incredible effort into taking the kinds of actions that were needed to respond to the pandemic and keep our city working in this new reality that we had. and so it was extremely disruptive on what was already a very disruptive effort to have, you know, numerous appeals that were filed at the same time because we were taking a lot of action at m.t.a. and then we got a lot of appeals all at the same time

and then it was very complex and, you know, a lot of use of city money and resources and time to respond to it. so absolutely, you know, no question, there are very few appeals filed, you know, overtime. i mean, prior to 2020, we had only had i think five appeals of m.t.a. projects since 2014, but then in two thousand twenty, we got eight appeals. some of them we did go forward with while the appeal was pending because they did fall under that immediate health or safety issue, but others that were dealing with keeping transit working, keeping safe ways for people to travel to essential jobs did get held up and it was only for a few weeks and thank you to the board for

moving those and hearing those in a very time leeway this legislation is kind of setting us up for better success and being responsive and in doing the work that we are trying to do for the city. >> chairman: okay. thank you, ms. jones and so if there's no further questions or comments. >> sorry. chair melgar. >> chairman: go ahead supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: so just to appoint right, but not for

that's ministerial. >> right. the paint and the posts are not ministerial. anything that is changing the physical environment any way is subject to ceqa. i have some numbers we issue. we basically have somewhere around 150 or so exemptions that are issued either by the planning department or by sfmta under a delegation agreement that we have with the planning

department. >> supervisor preston: and, have we ever had an appeal of merely paint on the ground or removalable posts. >> we've had the bike lane projects, for example. >> we've had several appeals bicycle lanes that are paints and posts. >> got it. thank you. >> supervisor preston: i think we're talking past each other. i understand if there's a more comprehensive project. i just don't understand the impression. to put that arrow that was faded and you repaint. i was just concerned that the public hearing the comment was any time you put paint on the ground. >> i'm sorry, we had a slightly different thinking. yes. when we go out and refresh a

crosswalk or something that already exists, no. that's not -- there wasn't a decision, a discussionary action taken to do that. >> supervisor preston: thank you for clarifying. and the other point supervisor haney referenced is the google bus type situation. i mean, i do think if i'm not mistaken that in essence, this legislation would, i think legalize what m.t.a. did in my opinion illegally back with the google buses although it never became mute by the time there was going to be any court ruling on it but this would essentially say that that kind of project which is reversible. there's no physical change would be allowed to go forward without ceqa review. that's to me a classic case of the city pretty much handing over public bus stops with obvious environmental impact

and yet the city green lights it. there's no opportunity for ceqa review. there's no opportunity for the kinds of mitigations one would have hoped to get from those companies if we're going to authorize that. that would have been challenged in court as a violation that it was allowed to go forward and then by the time it was heard, it became mute because the pilot was done. i think that's an excellent example of m.t.a. frankly green lighting something and taking a position that i don't think was consistent with ceqa and i would worry very much that that type of project would be the type of reversible project that could proceed without review under the ordinance as proposed. >> so i was the environmental review officer at the time of the commuter shuttle google bus decision. both the pilot and the

permanent program didn't undergo environmental review. i think we can discuss the how it all played out in the timing of all the actual approvals and decisions on that, but, you know, i am i do not see how this legislation would allow something to proceed that was toward the ability that would certainly not change how we do ceqa review. i want to clarify that. secondly, it maintains the right to appeal ceqa determinations and, third, what would be able to go forward

would be things that would be fully reversible and, you know, if the board found there was not environmental adequate review done, we would be -- we would be reversing it. that would be the only legal recourse or the only legal path for us to take would be to reverse something where the ceqa determination had been overturned. so i want to just, you know, the, you know, this legislation would not change our ability to operate in a legal way. >> supervisor preston: can i just follow up on that because i just like on this example, if today m.t.a. wanted to roll out a project equivalent to the google bus for a new version of

the google bus 2.0 here of 180 would this then xro collude someone from challenge -- from stopping that project from moving forward while an appeal, let's assume they get their 50 signatures under this or their five supervisors, they file a ceqa appeal. and i don't know. if that's a question for ms. jones or supervisor haney. >> i think there's something about, you know, a little bit of the detail about the google buses that i think is important here which is that the reason that that project was subject to ceqa and was considered a

project for the purposes of ceqa was that there was physical change proposed in terms of creating legal use of the curve for it. so that was a physical project with physical change. you know, the -- this legislation, you know, just thinking on the fly, yes, it would allow us to paint a curb and put up a sign and do things that could be taken down if that was what the board of supervisors' action called for. so, you know, those small physical changes could take place and then would be removed, you know, if that was what we were called to do.

we would not be proceeding saying that could not be undone. this legislation would not allow that to happen. >> right, but the point of the letter and i think he's correct that no one would bring that claim. so they fully implement the program. you make the physical changes that in theory were reversible. it's one hundred eighty day project. no one's going to bother with that appeal, but filing the appeal doesn't stop anything. so you move forward, you do that, and then you decide you're going to extend it for four years. you can extend it for four years and now it's in modification that is not subject to board review. >> can i? chair melgar. >> chairman: supervisor haney, if you have something to add beyond what ms. jones can. >> supervisor haney: absolutely. so we asked about this

explicitly about the shuttle program and they told us it would not be impacted at all. there are types of projects that the board of supervisors already has a legal role in that are not subject to the new signature threshold in creating or substantially modifying a private transportation program of which this was a type is one of those and so this was not something that would be impacted at all by this legislation. also, it's something that is actually implemented not by the city. so that was another reason why it wouldn't be included by this legislation. so i don't know if there's somebody from the city attorney's office that can explicitly answer that question from a legal perspective. and we ensured that something like that would not be impacted alternate all and those types of appeals would not be impacted at all. >> chairman: would you say "they" who did you mean?

m.t.a. or the city attorney? >> supervisor haney: city attorney, s.f.m.t.a.. this was always part of the determination legally that was made around this legislation. >> chairman: thank you. >> and a further point of clarification would be that this portion of the legislation would apply where an appeal had already been filed. so what chapter 31 says that once an appeal is filed, all action on a project needs to stop. all city action on a project needs to stop and so the situation of, you know, somebody not bothering to file an appeal, that has already occurred and what we're talking about at this point are projects from which an appeal has been filed and we're moving forward with small measures around it because the appeal has been filed.

>> chairman: thank you, ms. jones, supervisor peskin, you had your hand up. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. i want to deal with i think one of the fundamental contentions that is being expressed in this moment of the hearing because, ms. jones, and i don't want to put words in your mouth, but i think you said earlier that there is an existing provision whereby a department can carry out the actions while the ceqa decision is on appeal and those are set forth that are essential to abate hazards and certainly could be interpreted because it references emergencies, but the reason and i think this is what you said a

little earlier that you chose not to do that as to these projects that were the subject of the appeal was because your work whether it was reversible, they were all reversible would be at risk. isn't that what you said? >> no. thank you for asking that question, supervisor peskin. there were some of the projects that were appealed that were requested by, there were certain street changes that were requested by the department of public health, for example, to allow food distribution or, you know, kind of measures being taken to protect immediate to protect people against immediate threats of health and safety. we consulted with our attorneys and even though an appeal had been filed on those actions, we continued to go forward with

them. they had been requested by our city's at that point called the emergency operation center. we felt that that fell in the definition in chapter 31 of what could go forward. then there were some other projects that were meant to -- >> supervisor peskin: when you closed howard street. >> yes. and, you know, certain other things like allowing for the social distancing, giving space for social distancing when people were lined up to buy food, there was a category of projects that had asked to be appealed and those we continued to go forward with. then there was a set of projects that were initiated by the s.f.m.t.a. to allow for

smoother, safer travel by people using the buses, there were not trains at that point, using the buses and using the slow streets to travel by bike or foot. and those projects can not, you know, when we consulted with the attorneys, those projects while we were, you know, we felt they were critical emergency responses to make the situation more workable for people did not fall into that narrow definition of abating and, you know, and immediate public health and safety hazard and so those we did not go forward with, we put them on hold until the appeals had been heard and resolved. >> supervisor peskin: right. and i just had my staff do some research about how long it takes between when an appeal is

filed and when it is scheduled for a board of supervisors hearing and it appears to be mostly 4-6 weeks. now, i understand that, you know, not having a particular slow street back then, that felt like a long time, but a year and a half into the pandemic, it seems like it was just a moment. supervisor haney, this is a question respectfully to you through the chair, you spoke in cost when the m.t.a. or government agency couldn't do those reversible things. how could a project cost go up in 4-6 weeks? i don't get that. >> supervisor haney: i was referring to the staff time and the cost associated with the multiple departments, legal, you know, where they're working on this rather than other things. you know, it's definitely a lot

of resources that are used by our city departments on responding to these appeals. >> yeah. i take exception to that argument for a number of reasons. number one, as i said section 31.22 subsection a speaks to cost recovery and that's why the cost for filing one of these is so steep. but, look, we have situations all the time, this happens in our offices where our staff is not working on the issue we want them to be working on because we get a public records request. chapter 37 says you drop everything and you fulfill that sunshine request. and you know how much it cost to file that sunshine requests? nothing. you know how many signatures it takes?

one. they can even be anonymous. but, yeah, calvin or lee or sarah, got to drop everything and respond to that immediate disclosure in 24 hours or write a letter saying it's too have you voluminous. so there's a little opportunity cost and as i said earlier and ms. howard has revealed there's no documentalable data that jeff tumlin who was the one who shot off, you know, when you're shooting from the lip, this was i don't know if it was before or after the moscow statement that it took 100 hours of staff time. he can't prove that. that's not true. it's not documentable. thank you, madam chair. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. so, if there's no other comments or questions, madam clerk, let's go to public

comment, please. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to be added to the queue for item number 3. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. looks like we have 24 listeners, with 13 in queue to speak. jim, if you can unmute the first caller, please. >> good afternoon. jack lipkin in district 6. i'm a san francisco native and a walk sf member in support of this legislation. imagine if i walked down the street, went to the park, saw some city workers at work and i as a random citizen could tap them on the shoulder and make them down their tools and stop work for a month or two. the city projects have been a subject of multiple layers in

view had to stop until hundreds of person hours were spent on an appeal simply because i said stop. anyone would think that's absurd. yet that's essentially our system here in san francisco. it's hard to imagine any situation worthy of this board's time where fifty people or five supervisors aren't concerned enough to find their. all too often, i've seen projects that impact my safety as a pedestrian, transit rider, and cyclists and delay because of these appeals. i walk or ride my bike on page street delayed by a. allowing these delays not only waste time, it's contrary to the city's transit first policy. delaying bus lanes in the name of environmental protection is absurd and it should offend all of us who do care about the environment. it's particularly unconscionable that covid testing and pop-up food pantries were subject to these frivolous appeals.

first step is ensuring that ceqa is used to protect the environment. not from individuals to waste time and city funds by second guessing the wisdom of improved and board approval. the legislation will ensure that truly justifiable appeals, projects with massive impacts on the environment are taken seriously and given the important consideration they deserve. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. h we're waiting just on

two characters trying to delay this project. last but not least, i think just trying to create a better system, but right now, we need to be proactive. we're in a climate crisis and i can see another three to four weeks in the one day of orange cloud which we had last year. >> clerk: thank you for your

comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. san francisco land use coalition. yes, we oppose further watering down this ceqa appeals and are disappointed that supervisor haney and mayor breed have come up with a joint legislation to do just that. this is not just a riggous environmental review of the project. the as supervisor peskin pointed out, historically, ceqa appeals in san francisco make up a manuscia. this doesn't even register on the radar and cannot possibly be burdensome to the city. so what's the problem or should i ask what's the real motive behind closing over safety issues, there's absolutely no

good reason for allowing work to proceed on a project undergoing an appeal, clear and simple and neither is there any good reason by forcing us to find 50 neighbors to find a ceqa appeal. i must admit, we did not expect much from the m.t.a. or the planning department but from you, supervisor haney, we expected more. asinine justifications from the m.t.a., the most controversial agency in this town is par for the course, but not from you, speculate. >> supervisor haney: . that nierment and to that i can only site edward abby's eloquent site is the ideology

of a cancer cell. that's why i urge you chair melgar and supervisors peskin and preston to vote "no" and save the san franciscans from this calamity. thank you. thank you, mad om speaker. >> good afternoon chair melgar and supervisors preston and peskin. as a member of the race and equity and all planning coalition, i speak to the tenant's union one of the members of the rep coalition that i tell you if the city's intent on censoring and racial equity is not limit the ability of the communities by speaking to the impacts of the proposed projects have on our communities. i was pleased in the recent past the appeal brought by the

recent mission district was upheld by the board of supervisors. the e.i.r. process provides the only ability for the communities to alert the city and impacts and potential harm that proposed projects will have requiring 50 signatures for a ceqa appeal is ownerous specifically for businesses struggling to care and protect our communities and allowing projects to proceed while a ceqa appeal is pending takes away the leverage communities have to use the ceqa process to protect the communities and reduce the harm goppers may be imposing to inflict on our environment whether it's intentional or not. planners are just rubber stamping and expediting marketing and not allowing the environmental review of critical transportation. this legislation is just the start of the larger effort to

erode ceqa and not protect in communities that would potentially be affected. supervisor, this ordinance would move us in entirely the wrong direction by taking away community voices and giving all power over to developers. it's the exact opposite of what the city intends. please move to disapprove this ordinance. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker please. >> yes. i'm a parent, i commute by bus and car and bike and walking. so very multi-moto and i urge you to support this legislation. the bar is just simply too low and it's holding up as prior speakers have a alluded to important projects and these

bike lane projects i've just gotten involved with these topics in the past year and and some important things and so that's why [inaudible] the public is supporting this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have 25 listeners with 15 left in the queue. next speaker, please. >> supervisors this is lauren petty. affordable housing advocates for seniors. i urge you to project all this proposal for changes in ceqa, it is not good government. i consider it a threat.

to warn each other of consequences that protect each other from any dangers. as a senior, i've lived through many decades in san francisco and i've seen a lot of lives ruined by government action. now, i don't call the times we're living in the covid era. this is the era of the shrinking vote. all over the country state by state, the voices of the people are being silenced. narrow little piece by narrow little piece. it can't happen in california. pass bills to eliminate any local voices particularly in land use.

blocking public hearings. threatening ceqa in effect. almost all public input is being eliminated. racial and social equity is the stated goal, yet, here we have a proposal that would deny land time excluded communities. supervisors to eliminate a few appeals from a few people you don't agree with, you will threaten to exclude all appeals from all people, please don't be part of the incredible shrinking. thanks. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. a number of dforward. i'm calling to oppose this

ordinance. this is a slippery slope brings to mind the john bolten tell-all that the judge wouldn't go along with. this is just another example of the proliferation of legislation being introduced to silence people this trend seems to be contagious. please do your part to stop the spread and vote "no." thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon chair melgar and supervisors. this is judy madiras with walk san francisco and we are in strong support of the forms that strike the right balance between hearing out between concerns of neighbors and moving forward with

transportation safety projects. 30 people are dying each year from traffic crashes and close to 600 are injured. the vision zero goal is eliminating traffic deaths by 2024. our city has no time to waste. this thoughtful common sense reform legislation that's very limited to a set of projects will allow the sfm.t.a. to move forward on planning design of transportation projects including things that we all respect and love and are trying with slow streets and bike lanes and does not prohibit the board of supervisors when deemed necessary. all the members of the land use pass the legislation to the full board with positive recommendation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is kenneth russel.

i live in san francisco in district 7. first, thanks to my supervisor, chair melgar for scheduling this item to be heard. i'm calling in strong support. the board of supervisors shares my intent concern and dread about climate change. and we need to be able to make improvements for people on bicycles and we need to be be able to make improvements for pedestrians. please bring this measure forward thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> hi, supervisors. this is scott harvey

weinsteiny. >> i think it strikes the right balance, it's pretty narrowly tailored to specific types of transportation projects and it would still reserve appeals if you can get 50 signatures. i think you can get 50 people to agree to almost anything in san francisco. so if we have an appeal, having 50 people agree with it should be no problem. it's important for me to prevent prif louse appeals in transportation projects because we're trying to avoid carmegeddan right now. that's just going to create huge problems for everybody and in particular over the past year, we've seen a big boom in san franciscans riding bicycles who were previously too scared to ride through the city giving it a try through and it's important that we try to hold on to that and don't have

everybody taking over like overrunning streets so, for that reason, we really need good solid transportation projects that help people walk and bike and bus move forward without frivolous appeals. so i urge you to pass this with a recommendation. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes. good afternoon supervisors. this is linda schafer calling. i am a san francisco resident. i live in the outer, outer richmond and have some opinions about some things that were done to local streets around here. i'm calling to urge you to

oppose this legislation. i appreciate the effort was made to make it narrow and focused, but i can't get past the fact that what one person's seemingly frivolous appeal to the person making the appeal is actually serious. so that is one problem that i have with this. the other is the 50 signatures. if the people filing these so-called frivolous appeals are as smart as i think they are, what is to prevent them from just making up names and writing them down? are we going to have signature verification procedures as part of this? all in all, this seems to me like somebody who you've noticed that there's a fly buzzing around and instead of

using a fly swatter, you're calling in the exterminators using a bug bomb to get rid of what doesn't seem like a big problem. i would also like to thank supervisor peskin for bringing up sal bloom's name. i worked with him and i miss him. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. we have nine left in the queue. >> hi, i would like to echo the comments of other callers who feel like this is an attack on the public. you know, the city has had a lot of problems with transparency and construction and taking away from the public

the to have some checks on the power of the government. so it's really not a good idea to do that. to say now you have to go and run through more hoops to file an appeal and also this whole 50 signatures thing. i mean, i understand people are being vaccinated right now and so that covid-19 is less of an issue than it was before. really, this idea it's super easy to get 50 signatures is probably not as easy as you think it is. for one thing, we're still supposed to be through this thing. i don't think it's easy to go knock on peoples' doors and say hey, sign this for me because people don't want you knocking on their doors even if they're vaccinate, people are still not

used to being social like we were two, three years ago and, you know, so if some people aren't vaccinated and so there's that whole like safety issue of disease stuff and, you know, i mean even if covid-19 goes away, who knows what other diseases might be in the air. so and also -- is the department of elections going to verify 50 signatures. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is larica peteli. sfmta has a history of moving projects forward that cause

direct harm to our community without input by catizing on the fact that a third of our population are spanish only speakers. the 16th street red lanes project is a current example of this. temporary paint and changes to the 6 teenth street corridor were in place before community outreach was even done. businesses in the mission along the 60th street corridor were unaware of the project while the paint was being done a few blocks away. this is a long standing sfmta practice to get things in place and when community feedback comes back to them, they lament how hard and expensive it will be. our community is still suffering from the mission project that they said would just be a project and they would amend. it had great detrimental impacts and the harm's continued when nothing's changed. i'm deeply disappointed that

supervisor haney's drafted this legislation and like the s.f.m.t.a. he too did not check in with our communities across the city. this is a terrible piece of legislation creating another barrier to the self-determination working classes community of color in the city. this is inequitable legislation that should end right here. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. we have eight in the queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. kathryn howard sierra club. the sierra club opposes this legislation. we oppose work for sitting on a project while it's under appeal and we oppose requiring a lot of signatures to file an appeal. we cannot know all of the bad projects that might come up in

the future. further details the draw backs to this effort but we understand the motivation for this legislation and the club tried very hard to explore other options. we were unable to realize that any amendments that would preserve the rights of the people under ceqa and protect the environment. we also found that filing a ceqa appeal is not for all average residents. a neighborhood project for the first time. the community has to learn that a project exists and how many people even know what that is. they have to learn the process. they have to find an attorney. they have to determine whether they have grounds and file it all within 30 days of an approval process. we decided there should be a

more rigorous process and a more transparent notification process for projects and especially for the issuance of the tens of thousands categorical exemptions that come out of the planning department. therefore, taking all that together, we ask that you oppose this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thanks for your comments. next speaker. >> hi, supervisors. my name is martin munoz. i'm a tenant in district 5. i want to thank supervisor haney for bringing this forward. we are absolutely in a climate crisis. as a young person, i wish that the commenters had the same urgency about sustainable transportation as we do about their slippery slope argument. the truth is this has nothing to do with [inaudible] in terms of [inaudible]

it's absolutely to do with making streets more equitable and safer for pedestrians and cyclists, to allow san franciscans to choose sustainable options on their streets so we can have a safer plan so we can lead on the climate. we live in a city with nearly a million residents and getling 50 signatures is simply not that hard. if the appeal is truly has grounds, then getting 50 people to agree to it is short bar and preserves democracy in our city without letting one individual or a very small amount of individuals with frivolous claims to stop projects that will quite frankly shift our dispense. as a transit first city, we really cannot allow small

groups to stop the projects. this is allowing sfmta to trample perform for the better that really stop small changes that save lives in their tracks. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. we have eight left in the queue. >> hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> hello: thank you very much. this is stephanie p. in district two and i oppose this legislation and i hope that you guys will vote against it, well, i'm actually pulled over from driving. i was out at hunter's point

shipyard which is an example of poisoned soil and i think until we have some kind of technique in order to analyze the soil for pollution, we're going to have to have what looks like fairly expensive legislation and requirements for that just in the end, it's cheap for the price of the health of our kids. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm a district member and the sf bike coalition. i wanted to speak in strong support of mayor breed and supervisor haney's ordinance. transportation is our largest and fastest.

environmental quality act [inaudible] and public transit is one of the best tools we have to reduce driving, reduce pollution and thus improve our environmental quality. followed by just two bad actors who could dumb up the entire system. we must not let ceqa again be abused and we have declared an emergency. it's time we start acting like that and treat public transit with a greater sense of urgency. thank you and have a wonderful afternoon. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker please. >> hi, good afternoon supervisors.

this is susan brant calling and i'm an attorney who's practiced for 40 years representing ceqa petitioners and i live and practice in san francisco. just a couple of points to make in addition to all of those you've already heard. the basic problem here is that this is a state law that does not allow this kind of an amendment to ceqa. ceqa requires that environmental issues be explored and mitigated before a project goes forward. ceqa also requires an appeal of any decision or specific ones about the type of environmental review. this board is an elected decision making body and so it's representing the people. it's the requirement to an elected body that is critical here and hasn't been discussed much. we have appointed boards and

other decision makers that are not so directly, well, not elected by the people. so state law requires that this kind of appeal be allowed. the city doesn't have the power to change that. but as has been mentioned, there are a lot of exemptions to ceqa involving affordable housing and emergency statutory exemptions so they're not categorical and they provide a lot of protection. another problem that i think is important is that ceqa does not allow precommitment. it doesn't allow a project to go forward before a final approval occurs and that's because bureaucratic and financial momentum essentially don't open the possibility of a fair hearing by the elected board and here what's been discussed or proposed is that a

project can move forward before the appeal is heard and by the time it happens. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, thank you. my name is cliff barger. i'm a renter i mostly get in san francisco by bike, by transit, and by foot. i want to thank the chair for bringing up a public hearing on this and i want to express to the committee my strong support for this measure and i hope that you'll forward it to the rest of your colleagues with a support recommendation. there's a lot that can be said about how the status quo is slowing down progress on our climate goals, our vision zero goals. it's challenging our reaffirmed status as a transit first city, but i'm particularly surprised to hear people calling in

saying that this is somehow an attack on voting rights and comparing it to what's going on elsewhere in the country. i think if anything it's an attack on democracy in san francisco is the expectation that if people want to have their voices heard, they need to be able to be free to get to city hall or join one of these zoom calls in the middle of a work day. we have elections for a reason. all of the members of this committee were elected by the voters of their districts to make these important decisions. this is why we have a democracy, that's the basis of our democracy. our democracy is not random public hearings or the ability of individual people to make sewerous appeals. 50 people is really a pretty low threshold for something like this. we probably have close to that many people who joined this call already. i think it's not that hard to find 50 people to sign on if

it's a legitimate complaint, but we've seen just a handful of people able to cause m.t.a. to spend thousands of hours of staff time slowing down projects this last year. and, if we're going to meet our important goals on climate, on vision zero, on mode shifts, we really need to be able to move faster. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker please. we have eight left in queue. >> hi, good afternoon, my name is eric algoria. i'm with the latino cultural district. historically the s.f.m.t.a. doesn't have a great history of looking at projects through a racial and social equity lens and in mission district requiring 50 signatures for ceqa appeal within the timeline

or getting supervisors to sign on top of the fee is a tough requirement thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker please. >> hello, can e hear me. >> clerk: yes. you're on the line. >> hi, i lived in sf for the past two years in district 7 right next to ucsf, and, before the pandemic, i used to go to work with muni and after losing my job, i'm happy to leave by

car to work in a hospital. i am in strong support of ceqa reform. i think this legislation is necessary considering the fact that climate change is essential nipping our heals, we do not have time to wait. we do not have time for further delay. we need transit projects, we need to develop and paint bike lanes down. we need to build a city that's truly transit first and moves away from car depend sea and failing to reform ceqa is going to also make that harder. make it livable, safe, and green for everyone and i hope you all feel the same way. we do not have time to delay and we have to take this action. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is jim bay.

i live in district 8. i'm a renter. i'm also a member of urban environmentalists and i am an environmentalists. i've spent the last twelve years of my life working in clean energy. i've helped to build and i am involved in housing and transportation and land use because this issue is most important than what i've been working on for the last 12 years from a climate and decarbonization point of view. the most effective thing we can do as a city of local government is around decarbonizing transportation and increasing density in our city as part of the fight against climate change and that's backed up by studies from uc berkeley amongst

others. part of the fight against climate change emissions are bigger than our emissions from our electricity generation at this point. so it's vital we produce those by encouraging cycling and transit and walking and given that that is the case, we should not be allowing prif louse seeker appeals to slow down and delay these projects. it should be the opposite. you should require a ceqa appeal if you deny the project because denying the project is environmental impact. which is a benefit for the environment. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> thank you very much. i'm in strong support of this legislation to improve ceqa

appeals projects. it was unfortunately trying to help the environment but it was helping the environment in a way we thought it was right in the '70s. now it's just a roadblock for good projects that are helping us become less dependent on oil and safer for bicyclists and walkers. you know, that's one of the things, without this sort of legislation, it can be challenged when they're giving really great benefits to safety and convenience for alternate transportation. so i do hope that this gets approved. ceqa reform is necessary. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is janice lee and i'm here on behalf of the san francisco bicycle coalition. obviously, there are a lot of feelings getting brought up. i think supervisor haney has said probably everything i

would have wanted him to say. and we believe at the bike coalition that this legislation does this. as you heard, the planning commission has unanimously recommended approval of this legislation. the idea that this would erode ceqa, you can't have it both ways. opponents of this legislation have in the same breath said that appeals don't happen this often and a ceqa appeal at 6,$500 a pop to file. these appeals are filed by the white vote with privilege. created significant changes to the way san francisco impacts are measured. san francisco immediately moved forward with those changes and began to use vehicle mile travel and sb17 in july 2020. still requires environmental review documentation.

around the same time, we saw a significant uptick in appeals. while it may be a small number in the world of projects, that's not a reason enough to not move forward with this legislation. this is not in search of a problem. the problem arose already when we saw critical needs in the tenderloin. parking changes to help food pantries and covid test site operations. for people who are saying this is not a major project social distancing or the golden gate avenue street closure. i recognize it's not necessarily support amongst this committee and that's okay. and we would simply ask this committee bring the full board of supervisors a chance to weigh in as a recent appeal affected projects. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please.

we have six left in the queue. hello, caller. you have been unmuted. hello caller? hello, caller. let's take the next caller. hi, you're on the line. >> sorry. hi. my name's scott. i'm a renter in san francisco. i strongly support this legislation and i ask that you forward it to your colleagues on the whole board because it will help san francisco mitigate climate change and help decarbonize our city. i'd like to thank supervisor haney for bringing this legislation to the board and to this xhut and i'd like to thank supervisor chair of the

committee melgar for calling this hearing. we all need to acknowledge the fact that environmental law written 50 years ago is stopping projects that will mitigate climate change like transit only lanes where people can bike and walk. these are examples where oneover two people and they're basically unfortunately sabotaging sf's environmental efforts and all the hard work and sfmta's workers. i strongly support this legislation. i personally believe that 50 is probably too low and the legislation should have a signature threshold of 100 or 200 people. climate change is real and we need to create a network throughout the city so we can live and work without being forced to own and use green house gas emitting cars. please support this legislation. >> clerk: thank you, next

speaker. >> hi. thank you. i am a renter in district 8. i've lived in district 8 for the last 12 and a half years and i'm calling to express very strong support their this needed legislation to avoid some of these frivolous and projects. i've lived in the city for 12 years and we've seen cycling explode and pedestrian activity in a lot of the city explode with the ability to do a lot of these safety improvements and that's something that was held up by just one person for years and we need to find ways every

time transit first policy. it was first ratified in the 70s. and most recently in 2014 in a city of 800,000 people. i think this bar incredibly low to declare if there are some issues that's much harder. if you can't find 50 people in the population of 800,000.

i hope the project moves forward. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. we have six. >> yes. hi, my name is matthew. can you hear me. >> clerk: yes. go ahead. >> hi, my name is matthew and i'm a renter in districtly 3. i'm calling to support this legislation to move forward a lot of these projects and i'm concerned about people abusing this process to stop slowed streets, emergency transit lane. i think that's something we

should be encouraging and making it harder for these complaints if. >> clerk: if you're on hold, please continue to hold. if you'd like to speak, please press star. the system will indicate you have raised your hand. we have five left in queue. jim, next speaker, please. >> hi, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is sam. i'm a renter in district 8 and i'm just calling to express my support for the bill and thank the chair for bringing it up and to thank supervisor haney for introducing it. it just comes down to the fact that makes it more difficult that are beneficial for the

climate and the city of san francisco. and when you look at what it does by making it harder to implement changes it entrenches the status quo and in this case is a car oriented one without transit improvements, without slow streets and, as a result, i think that, you know, it's pretty clear that this is a good bill and i think more broadly, it's important to to that policy just because they already exist today because the reason we're in it's a bit frustrating to deal with

especially converses except for a few very privileged people who have the money to oppose these positive transit oriented changes. let's be a transit first progressive city that sols the climate and let's pass this legislation. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is adam buck, i'm a physician who just lives in d6 and i'm calling in support of this legislation. i have a really great member of when i worked at zuckerberg's general memorial hospital emergency room and i had the privilege of showing a young woman a mirror where literally all of her front teeth were knocked out and having to hold

her hand while she was sobbing and just allowing a single person to get in the way of vision zero for months, you know, this is one of those things that's going to happen and there's also a budget of time. every single one of these appeals requires hundreds of man hours of prep and it just limits the amount of quick build projects they can do. and so i would just think of the victims and realize that everything you do to slow things down means there's going to be more of them and that important tenant of the environment and a healthy environment is not being run over by tons of steel. so i definitely encourage you to allow this to move on to the full board. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is robert. i live on page street which is now a slow street in part thanks to the every thes of supervisor preston and no small part. i just want to point out that particularly the paved streets on thing end of the ceqa appeals not once but twice in 2020, but certainly seems like the current equity situation for appeals is not being questioned in recent memory have often found by two white people who hate pedestrians and bicycles.

so i think it's kind of surprising. i've also heard an argument that sunshine requests take a long time to respond to. so therefore it's also good and proper that we should suggest sfmta to hundreds of people hours of busy work to respond to appeals from mary miles and company. i don't think we should necessarily slow down transit projects because people want to know what their supervisor is saying. it just kind of sounds like you really just don't want people to know what documents you're writing or who you're writing e-mails to. i think it's a much different question than mary miles going up to the board of supervisors and saying that someone said based on more bikes and cars on their street, so their comment

which is actually something that i heard was said about me when i went to give public comment -- >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speculator, please. we have two left in queue. >> hi, i am a renter and a muni commuter in d3. i'm not an anti-ceqa fundamentalist. while it is narrowly tailored and as such i support it. if we really had a system that could separate good from bad concerns then we would have

used it, for example, instead of elevating i don't know some dude who can afford a line of lawyers who's doing a bike lane over a wine bar. we would give marginalized communities and gentrification concerns which can be hijacked by rich white people of lawyers and spare time which is exactly what working class people in this city do not have. i really do not think giving these people doesn't solve the real question here, the equity question which is creating more power for the underprivileged and creating mechanisms of governance. i think that we need to focus on that problem differently and i don't think voting supervisor haney's measure down is going to solve that problem. as such, i'm asking that you bring it to the full board for consideration. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is alex. i'm a resident of bayview hunter's point down in district 10, you know, i live in a neighborhood that's absolutely isolated from the rest of the city because of the overwomening amount of car infrastructure that the city no longer supporting. this is a necessary bill to help turn this around to make it safer for my kids to be able to get around town, to make it more pleasant to be able to be out and breathing clean air. unfortunately, it seems as though some people are used ceqa or approaching ceqa the way our friends in the republican party approach the constitution as something handed on from st. ronald reagan in this case. i'm a long-time ceqa supporter.

i have filed a number of ceqa suits and i have provided expert comments on ceqa as well there's nothing here that advanceds decarbonization. thank you for supporting this and hopefully the rest of the supervisors can support this as well. >> clerk: thank you. that was the last caller in queue, madam chair. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. is there a motion to send this item to the board with a positive recommendation or to send it with no recommendation?

>> clerk: supervisor haney had a question, amendments? >> chairman: i'm sorry, supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: yeah. i just -- what's that? >> chairman: go ahead, please. >> supervisor haney: no. i circulated amendments and i would appreciate if somebody might move those and sort of address some of the specifics around the process of how the signatures would be addressed and the clerk can ask for those amendments. that's the only thing i wanted to share. >> chairman: okay. well i will make a motion to move your amendments. supervisor peskin, did you have your hand up? >> supervisor peskin: i believe supervisor preston actually has his hand up before i do. >> chairman: oh, i didn't see that.

go ahead, supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you chair melgar and supervisor peskin. i just wanted to make some final comments after hearing all the public comment and our extensive discussion and i just want to say what i have not seen, but i haven't really seen an example of delay caused by our current ceqa process that would not have resulted had this legislation been in effect, that's problematic and this goes to supervisor peskin's earlier point. i've heard a lot of references to "frivolous appeals" and i've seen this over and over in many contexts. we saw the national assault and it's easy to claim that but

it's like what do the actual numbers show and, you know, i think, of course, there are frivolous claims, but the question is what happened to those claims? and if they get poszed i'm just not seeing some of the rhetoric that the actual issue we're trying to address and i think what's rea

i'm not seeing that it necessarily does anything to root out the frivolous ones and

i think, you know, the barriers are not necessarily insurmountable, but i think they are significant and so i just wanted to make those comments before we move forward to consider procedurally how we want to move forward. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair and i appreciate the words of supervisor preston because [inaudible] like this aren't just about the issues, they're really about how the entire system works over time and the way supervisor preston just flipped the argument on its head is precisely what everybody, be careful what one wishes for. i also want to say, you know, to some of the speakers that organizations like green action and podare are represented and

have availed themselves of ceqa when they needed to in that process. so it's easy to say this is only about rich white people with access and money, but the record that is before us is a little more complex in that. i also want to say, this is not a panasia for addressing climate change. this city has done incredible work over the last generation. i mean, i remember when we replaced every single stoplight in san francisco and we've been reducing or carbon footprint in every way that we can. join me in the fight. i know all of you colleagues have in getting our retirement board to divest over a half a billion dollars in fossil fuels. that's a discussion for another

day. this is really about due process. it's about a public forum we electricitied officials who are accountable to the electorate to make that determination now and in the future without barriers, without the disincentives that are in this legislation. let me say to supervisor haney and the mayor, is this a fundamental end of the world earth shattering game changer? no, it's not. but our developers sal have a seating that if it can be done for city projects, it should be done for private projects, you bet they are. and, as for the issue of cost which has been wantied about and i'll say for the third time, those were some words from the lip, a shot from the lip and i respect the guy from our director of transportation that we are not documentalable despite the fact that those members have been requested by the public.

if you want to talk about saving money, we have now heard from two of the best ceqa attorneys in the state of california with one repeated including the ones that he represents in today's proceeding and green action. tell us what i think is right. this is illegal under state law. so if we want to save money, let's save money from the litigation. we can't talk about that. let's save us some money from court and attorneys fees and then finally, i mean, look, again, this is not earth shattering legislation. this is i do believe a slippery slope, but the amount of time and staff effort that has been put into this piece of

legislation could have covered five ceqa appeals. with that the amendment 6, 1, half a. i will make a motion to take this matter in committee and let me again say these things are heard timely, they're heard within six weeks. i have a mid lock crosswalk in the heart of north beach where stockton, green, and columbus all come together. it's in the queue. it's been funded. it's been approved. but it's not going to be built for another year even though everybody agrees. that's just how long the back is whether it's denied. enough.

i want to make a motion to table it. >> chairman: i had a couple comments before we take the roll call. so i will say that, you know, i appreciate supervisor preston's comments about, you know, what happens when the stuff we don't like. i will also say that, you know, it's been my experience and my very short time as supervisor that when we get folks at the m.t.a., at the p.u.c. to do something that the community has been asking for for awhile, it usually takes a lot of organizing and community support to get folks to install those crosswalks to implement those slow streets to improve sewer drain systems and, you know, that 1% can then stop

what people in the community have been organizing for and supporting is, you know, is a problem and so i do appreciate that there are, you know, righteous folks who are fighting the good fight and i also think that, you know, as one of the commentors said, we had waiting out the frivolous versus the folks that are trying to save the world, we would be using it. i support what supervisor haney is trying to do here and i would vote in favor of the legislation. so can we call roll on this amendments first, please, madam clerk. >> clerk: yes. on the motion as stated by --

technically, madam chair, there are, there was an amendment offered by supervisor peskin first. i would have to take that. >> supervisor peskin: mine was a motion to table. >> clerk: i'll need to take the motion for supervisor peskin's motion to table. on the motion to table as requested by supervisor peskin, [roll call] you have two ayes with one no with supervisor melgar. >> chairman: okay. so assume sorry. i don't know what the protocol is right now. >> clerk: so when an item is tabled, it is left on the

pending list and can be called again. but, for now, it's tabled. and, also, just a matter of housekeeping, if you can. >> i guess i forgot. public comment is now closed. >> clerk: thank you. >> chairman: okay. thank you, supervisor haney and thank you, colleagues for a robust discussion and thank you to all the folks from the public who came to debate this topic. i appreciate that. madam clerk, is there any other business for the committee? >> clerk: that concludes the business for today. >> chairman: we are adjourned. thank you.

>> still a lot of people wonder since the trees have a lot of issues, why did we plant them in the first place? >> trees are widely planted in san francisco. with good reason.

they are workhorses when it comes to urban forestry. we have begun to see our ficustrees are too big and dangerous in san francisco. we have a lot of tree failures with this species in particular. this is a perfect example of the challenges with the structure of the ficustrees. you can see four very large stems that are all coming from the same main truck. you can see the two branches attached to one another at a really sharp angle. in between you can't it is a lot of strong wood. they are attached so sharply together. this is a much weaker union of a branch than if you had a wide angel. this is what it looks like after the fi c.u. resolution s limb l.

>> we see decline. you can see the patches where there aren't any leaves at all. that is a sign the tree is in decline. the other big challenge is the root system of the tree are aggressive and can impact nearby utilities, and we can fix the sidewalk around the tree in many cases. we don't want to cuts the roots too severely because we can destabilize the tree. >> in a city like san francisco our walks are not that wide. we have had to clear the branches away from the properties. most of the canopy is on the street side and that is heavyweight on those branches out over the street. that can be a factor in tree limb failures. a lot of people wonder since

these trees have a lot of issues. why did we plant them in the first place? they provided the city with benefits for decades. they are big and provide storage for carbon which is important to fight climate change and they provide shade and really i think many people think they are a beautiful asset. >> when we identify trees like this for removal and people protest our decision, we really understand where they are coming from. i got into this job because i love trees. it just breaks my heart to cut down trees, particularly if they are healthy and the issue is a structural flaw. i have also seen first hand what happens when we have failures. we have had a couple of injuries due to tree failures. that is something we can't live with either. it is a challenging situation.

we hate to lose mature trees, but public safety has to always

[♪♪♪]blic safety has to always [siren] [indiscernible radio chatter] >> hello. i'm dr. john brown, the medical director of the san francisco e.m.s. agency. this is national e.m.s. week. it's a time for us to take a

moment and celebrate the e.m.s. providers throughout the country. i want to take this moment and this time to thank all of the e.m.s. providers in san francisco who have gone way beyond the level of care in this situation. as the covid-19 pandemic spread across the globe and we prepared to respond to this disaster, you stepped up to an integral part of that response. you wore cumbersome p.p.e. and responded to rapidly changing protocols on a daily basis. your commitment to this e.m.s. system is truly extraordinary. additionally, you helped us push our care along even further, and about to start our lucas device program to improve the care for cardiac arrest patients. this is amazing to push e.m.s.

care above and beyond where we are before during the midst of this pandemic. i thank you for that. i also wanted to shoutout and especially recognize all the folks that have helped us in the e.m.s. transportation hub, the 911 dispatcher, the paramedic supervisors, the patients transfer coordinators, the paratransit drivers, everyone coming together to spare the 911 resource and keep us responding to disasters in an appropriate fashion. while we can't celebrate e.m.s. week together, i hope you know how much i appreciate all of your courage, professionalism, and dedication in this unprecedented time that we're living in. >> greetings, and happy emergency services week in san francisco. i am san francisco fire chief jeanine nicholson. i wish i could be there in person to express my gratitude to all of you.

the call takers and dispatchers, the call taking personnel, and, of course, paramedics and e.m.t.s. i understand and appreciate what it is you do day in and day out. i sat where some of you now sit. i'm a firefighter, but i worked on both d.l.s. and a.l.s. ambulances in the san francisco fire department before some of you were born. i know what it is that you see and do while at work. i know the impact it can have. i know you make sacrifices to do what you do, and i know many of your families do, as well. so continue to take care of yourselves and each other. go out and learn something new every day. keep up that positive energy and enthusiasm. thank you for your loyalty, not just to the job or to the fire department, but to the people

here in the city and county of san francisco. there is no higher calling than one of service to others. you are appreciated. >> hi. i'm san francisco police chief william scott. on behalf of the officers and the personnel of the san francisco police department, i'd like to thank you and congratulate you on this, the 46 annual e.m.s. week. like our brothers and sisters in the fire and sheriff's department, we rely on all of you in e.m.s. for emergency medical care. i have experienced nothing but the highest level of professionalism from our ambulance crews in the field and know that each of you go the extra mile, whether it's a broken finger or cardiac arrest. >> hi. i am mary ellen carroll, director of the department of emergency management in san francisco. we are the city's 911 center, and we answer every fire, police, and emergency medical service call. our dispatchers work hand in

hand with field personnel to make sure that every call for medical care is handled not only efficiently but with compassion. you are the next link after we take the call. the care that you provide to these patients can truly be the difference between life and death. i want to thank all of you for your dedication, your service, and commitment. >> hi. i'm sheriff paul miyamoto, and i'm proud to call out the professionalism of our e.m.t.s. we provide safety services for both zuckerberg and laguna honda hospitals, and we've come to know many of you.

>> i'm grant colfax, director of public health for the city and county of san francisco. i just really wanted to say thank you to the e.m.s. team for your work. 2020s been a challenging and unprecedented year as we work together to address the covid-19 pandemic, and your work being on the frontline every day is saving so many lives. these are unprecedented times, and we've had to come to new ways to thank people. so while i can't do it in person, i want to thank each and every one of you. e.m.s. has always been an incredibly strong and important partner for public health, with public health and our work, and it only continues to be more so during this pandemic. i want to thank you, but i also want to make sure, with those thanks, to express the clear

ask of you to take care of yourselves and your families. we know that during these times, self-care and getting the help that you need is so important as you work on the frontlines saving lives every day. thank you so much for your help. >> hi. i'm mayor london breed. i want to thank every e.m.t., paramedic, firefighter, nurse, physician, and the support personnel who are part of our e.m.s. system in san francisco. during e.m.s. week, and as we are fighting this global pandemic, i am especially grateful for the opportunity to celebrate the important work you do every single day. it's because of you that we feel safe knowing you are in that ambulance, in that fire engine, or in that hospital emergency department, really to provide assistance to anyone in

need. most importantly, you carry out your duties with care and compassion. now more than ever, our city appreciates the extra effort and sacrifice you have made to keep us healthy and safe. tonight, we light up city hall, coit tower, and salesforce tower in e.m.s. blue and white to honor your service and sacrifice. [♪♪♪] >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you so much for what you do. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. >> e.m.s. strong. thank you. [♪♪♪]

>> there's a new holiday shopping tradition, and shop and dine in the 49 is inviting everyone to join and buy black friday. now more than ever, ever dollar that you spend locally supports

small businesses and helps entrepreneurs and the community to thrive. this holiday season and year-round, make your dollar matter and buy black. . >> my name is dave, and i play defense. >> my name is mustafa, and i am a midfielder, but right now, i am trying to play as a goalkeeper, because they need a goalkeeper. >> soccer u.s.a. is a nonprofessional organization. we use sports, soccer in particular to engage communities that can benefit

from quality programs in order to lift people up, helping to regain a sense of control in one's life. >> the san francisco recreation and park department and street soccer u.s.a. have been partners now for nearly a decade. street soccer shares our mission in using sport as a vehicle for youth development and for reaching people of all ages. rec and park has a team. >> i'm been playing soccer all my life. soccer is my life. >> i played in the streets when i was a kid. and i loved soccer back home. i joined street soccer here. it was the best club to join. it helps me out. >> the tenderloin soccer club started in the summer of 2016. we put one of our mini soccer pitches in one of our facilities there. the kids who kpriez the club team came out to utilize that space, and it was beautiful

because they used it as an opportunity to express themselves in a place where they were free to do so, and it was a safe space, in a neighborhood that really isn't the most hospitalable to youth -- hospitable to youth playing in the streets. >> one day, i saw the coach and my friends because they went there to join the team before me. so i went up to the coach and asked, and they said oh, i've got a soccer team, and i joined, and they said yeah, it was he for everybody, and i joined, and it was the best experience ever. >> a lot of our programs, the kids are in the process of achieving citizenship. it's a pretty lengthy process. >> here, i am the only one with

my dad. we were in the housing program, and we are trying to find housing. my sister, she's in my country, so i realize that i have a lot of opportunities here for getting good education to help her, you know? yeah. that's the -- one of the most important things that challenge me. >> my dad was over here, making some money because there was not a lot of jobs back home. i came here, finish elementary in san francisco. after that, i used to go back to my country, go to yemen, my country, and then back here. last time i went back was a couple years ago. >> i came here six months, i know nobody. now i have the team has a family, the coaches. amazing. >> i'm hoping for lifelong friendships, and i'm super inspired by what they've been

able to achieve and want to continue to grow alongside them. >> i love my family, i love my team. they're just like a family. it's really nice. >> street soccer just received a five year grant from the department of children, youth and family, and this is an important inreflection point for street soccer u.s.a. 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 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