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.

>> good morning, everyone! i get the amazing privilege of being the coronavirus of habitat for humanity greater san francisco and we're so pleased you can join us. we're here in diamond heights to break ground on a very important project to us.

there's not very many community occasions that is exciting as the ground breaking except for the day we give the keys to the family which is coming soon. as we begin, i would love to invite a champion for affordable housing and a good friend to habitat for humanity, pastor teresa chow sigh a few words and to bless us all. pastor chow. [applause] thank you. a house carries very significant importance. it's more than just a shelter, for some it's a sanctuary, place of rest and belonging. for my parents, who emigrated to the u.s. from south korea a house was a dream, however their dream didn't stop at owning a house for themselves, but being able to provide a house for their children and grandchildren. 20 years ago, when i moved to san francisco, newly married, my

parents' dream was realized as they helped my husband and i purchase our first home. and it's why i chose to wear this particular stolz today. this korean fabric means many colors. during very difficult times through out korean history, parents would don their children in these colorful fabrics as a symbol of their hope. they carry the hopes and dreams of the community and i wear this carrying dreams many of us for not just housing but affordable housing. to make this dream come true, it takes the community to put fourth the sweat equity, to push fourth just policies, build a foundation, network the resources and carry the hopes with determination. i love that the homes that will be built here on this land begins with community. city officials, faith leaders, volunteers, neighbors, homeowners and home dreamers, which truly makes it our house.

in the korean angst possess i have pronoun, my is rarely used. we use our. my house is our house, my dream is our dream, my land is our land. however, when we say our house, we also carry the responsibility of not only the hopeful future but the past so that our dreams do not -- are not at the expense of others and that's what it means to be a community. so in the spirit i would like to share this house blessing by poet jan richardson and acknowledging this is on the ancestrial home lapped of the aloney people who are the or not inhabitants. think of the year as a house, door swung wide and welcome, threshold swept and waiting a grace spaciousness, opening and offering itself to you. let it be blessed in every room,

let the it be hollowed in every corner. let every nook in the refuge and every object set to holy youth, let it be here that safety will rest, let it be here that health will make its home, let it be here that peace will show its face and let it be here that love will find its way, here let the weary come and let the aching come, let the lost come and let them find rest and find their soothing and let them find their place. and let them find their delight. and may it be in this house of a year that the seasons will spin in beauty and may it be in these turning days the time will spiral with joy and rooms will fill with ordinary grace and lights spill from every window with welcome to the strangers calling it home. amen. [applause] >> thank you so much pastor.

we appreciate you and your congregation for your friendship and your advocacy on housing and your on going support. i want to welcome our guests here with us today. because of covid we had to limit the crowd. i appreciate all of you who are here with us, and physically and in spirit. i'm delighted to say that mayor breed is with us today. since her inauguration, mayor breed has been a true champion and leader prioritizing affordable housing. under her leadership, the mayor's office of housing and community development has continued and increased their work supporting families and communities across the city. today, san francisco has a robust pipeline of affordable housing and ready to be built and available at all levels for all family sizes. madam mayor, it's great to see

you and we look forward to bringing hundreds more homes that we have in our pipeline in the next several years forward to partner with the city. i also couldn't be happier the district 8 supervisor mandelman is with us today. there are few people who have worked harder more thoughtfully than you have to get more affordable homes built with the needs of each neighborhood. it's good to see you. i'm going to come back to a would be wonderful proposal of yours in a little while. eric shaw is also with us today. thank you for your leadership and your vision and we really appreciate it. we also have with us three san francisco habitat homeowners today. den ice, jenn, and jeanette. if you can all just wave. like all habitat homeowners, denise jenn and janette know their way around a construction site and experienced home builders. i know they can't wait to welcome new families to these

homes and help them on their journey. i'm so pleased to see bryn smith here today, a fantastic volunteer who has worked hundreds of hours both here in san francisco and overseas across the globe. thank you, bryn. you live a stone's throw away and we'll see him working on the homes. representing our amazing dime opened heights neighborhoods, i can see betsy eddie, thank you, co president of the diamond heights community association, and betsy is such a strong supporter of this project. from the moment i first called her to say yes, how can we help and i really appreciate you. last time we were together, just up the hill at the police academy, we had about 70 community members join us to learn about and support the project. i was so impressed that we had almost everyone 68 out of the 70 who said yes we want to see this project happen. something that doesn't get enough recognition here in our city. our architectses, toby is here

and you can see the beautiful rendering behind me and it will turn into a beautiful community for the families that live here. and you can see reflected in the design the compliments of the neighborhood as you look around. several members of our habitat for humanity greater san francisco board are with us today. mark and ken preston and thank you for coming out and if i missed anyone, sorry. we have a board meeting later so i'll hear about it. normally, of course, in pro covid times, we would be able to welcome many more of our hundreds of homeowners and thousands of volunteers to this event. i feel so blessed that we've been able to be here together and gather as many friends. i know we're all excited to be moving forward with this path to a gradual and safe reopening. we're starting the project with a very special story attached to it. on this site, right here, stood the home of a great san franciscan maria collish.

she was one of the first people to move into the diamond heights neighborhood in the '50s when all of this was in open meadow. she was a chemist, activist, medical researcher whose circle of friends included chemist line, artist, and venture and architect fuller and photographer imaging cunningham and if you look over at the plaque, you will see the beautiful image that the shot of her that we memorized on a plaque. she loved her city and had he loved the people who live here. the site was donated by her son and his wife. in her honor and memory they wish to help more hard-working families stay in the city that she cared for. today, mischa at 99-years-old is resting at home and he is looking forward to seeing a video of us all later today. the flag recognizing his mother will be a fix to the building

when finished. the sculpture is based on a photo. this will stand as a reminder to all of the life maria left and her generosity to families in san francisco. so now where there was previously one home, there will be eight homes. three and four bedroom homes for families. this type of urban refill project typically more manageable numbers on units on smaller parcels o of land has potential to contribute to the number of homes that low income people can be homeowners in in san francisco. that's why we're so supportive of sensible proposals such as those by supervisor mandelman to make it a little easier to build smaller size projects and certain locations that are in keeping with the neighborhood character density and transportation availability. just yesterday, the supervisor introduced legislation to make four-unit buildings easier to build and we support that

effort. so what makes a habitat project? well, all of our homes are affordable homeownership. because we know home opioid allows families to realize potential, to build wealth and equity and accomplish their dreams. habitat serves as both the general contractor, the developer and the mortgage lender with a zero down and zero percentage interest loan for families. we cap all families housing costs at 30% of their income and this pro voids predictability, stability, and for the next generation, and for this generation as well. our homeowners invest 500 hours working alongside their neighbors and the community. they will be joined by hundreds of volunteers who live and work in san francisco and who want to make sure families have a chance to stay and plant their roots in the community. these homes are forever affordable as habitat buys them back when families move on it market rate homes or relocate after their children are grown and the process starts over

again with another family. san francisco loves volunteers, pound for pound we have the most generous people in the country right here in san francisco. we've already been inundated with offers from volunteers who are anxious to safely get back to work after the past year of quarantine. this will be supported by habitat pro commercial construction staff and they have kept our construction sites safely and productively across our region. habitat san francisco is building in and to see so much affordable housing gun o in our. and the balboa reservoir projects last year. we're excited and proud to be homeowner developers in these projects. this is being supported by the mayor's office of housing and community development with

$1.5 million in construction and permanent financing. just like so many affordable developments, the mayor will drive them to the finish. i want to acknowledge eric. when he learned that 85% of habitat homeowners were bipoc family in san francisco and we look forward to carrying the legacy forward in awful our projects. and as our reopening process proceeds, we listen to the guidance from local government, we look forward to restarting our critical repair work which has helped so many of our neighbors stay safe and warm in the homes they know and they've been in for a long time, especially in the buy view and san francisco. tur for being here. i'm delighted to introduce you to the woman who needs no introduction, and the leader mayor london broad. breed. [applause] madam mayor, welcome. >> thank you, i had to put my hair back. it's windy out here. first of all, let me say how

excited i am about this project and i am not surprised the community here in diamond heights rallied together to support it. this community is a very active community and i have a history, believe it or not, with the diamond heights community when i worked at treasure island when the city was considering moving the police academy to treasure island. this community fought to keep the police academy right here in this community and they were successful. along with the work and the advocacy around george christopher park and we broke ground on a new playground and in that particular area, a couple weeks ago. and so, this is an amazing community. it's a resilient community. it's a community that has a history that was just talked about. maria polish, one of the first residents here in the 1950s when it was just a meadow and now look at it. a neighborhood and a community where children are raised and

people shop and see each other at the grocery store and we know that this project is going to be an important part of this community too. so, i am excited about it. i'm especially excited because some of you might have remembered when i served on the board of supervisors i introduced neighborhood preference legislation and that legislation made sure that when we build affordable housing in communities, the right of first refusal for the certain percentage of those units goes to the people who actually live here who are qualified for the affordable unit. in order to allow for opportunities for your children or grand children, who may have grown up in this community, to have at least the possibility of getting access to these homes. so in this particular project, neighborhood preference will be used for home ownership. i can't be more thrilled to be working with habitat for humanity because of the incredible work that they do the

hardest part of owning a home is putting together a down payment. and in san francisco, that's at least a minimum of $250,000 in order to own a home that many people sometimes can barely afford. and here, no down payment. no more than 30% of their income used to pay representative. a place that people will call home and be able to raise their families. and if they are so fortunate enough to excel in life and generate more revenue for their household and move on to purchase another property, the home will still be affordable to the next generation. this is an incredible project for our city. and i couldn't be more thrilled. i wanted to say how much i appreciate all of you the voters of san francisco. when i first became mayor, we put on the ballot an affordable housing bond which wow supported overwhelmingly and since i've taken office, we've been able to, along with that affordable housing and other resources,

we're able town vest over a billion dollars in affordable housing in san francisco. that's why it was not a hard sil for us, immediately providing the resources necessary to get the job done for this project so it's your support, your advocacy and everyone coming together and it really does take a village and this village came together to provide incredible opportunities for home ownership for families and i'm looking forward to being here when we cut the ribbon in the first families move in. thank you all so much for being here today. [applause] thank you so much, mayor. now i want to introduce someone well-known to us and well-known further afield for his thoughtful approach to an environment where more affordable homes can be built. i want to welcome rafael mandelman. welcome. >> thank you. samson bloom.

this is a little bit of like a collision of my multiple world's. i want to grad school 20 something years ago with eric and hey eric, and i worked when i was a lawyer in private practice representing local governments on many teams, are you representing kappa chat? you are on the board. awesome. well, good to see you. so, at any rate, everybody, i am so excited about this particular moment. from the moment that i started as a supervisor, i wanted to see more affordable housing built in district 8 and district 8 is a hard district to get affordable housing built in notwithstanding the displacement that has happened from district 8. it's hard because we're built out and we don't have a lot of available sites because land values are high. from our very first meeting with mayor breed, i've been asking her for help with affordable housing in district 8 and she's

been delivering it. she acquired a big giant property on market street that is going to house lgbtq queer seniors and friends. this particular project is really exciting and required moe and eric to do outside the box thinking about how to use the funds. in district 8, projects small projects like this habitat projects, affordable home projects make a lot of sense on these small sites. but it's been something that most have been funding before and i'm sure partly through the intervention of our mayor and doing things like this and it showed great flexibility around funding this and i have all sorts of people who i should thank. got the mayor and eric shaw and of course habitat for humanity and the tremendous work you do and you are pushing us to think outside the box about getting this project done.

all of the volunteers and of course the neighbors. betsy, deserves praise all the time in every way but it's wonderful to be in a neighborhood that is welcoming affordable housing and wants to see it built here and i'd love to say this was courageous to have this project here but the neighborhood wants it and people have been e-mailing us saying when is it getting done. there's excitement and enthusiasm and of course finally to mischa and his family for making this opportunity availability this is exciting. thank you, everyone. >> thank you so much. so as we get ready to mark the occasion with some photos. we're going to put some shovels in the ground. i want to thank everyone for being here and lending your support. thank you mayor breed, you are well served by your staff and they were amazing to work with

and thank you supervisor mandelman and your team, also amazing and thank you to our neighbors here in beautiful diamond heights we can't wait to see you out on the construction site in the spring and be ready to start with our volunteers, right, err on, and all our communities of homeowners, volunteers, board members, staff, donors, thank you, thank you, thank you. and a most special thank you to my friends, and our generous donor mischa and the vision and donation of this hand in honor of maria, began journey and brought us here where today. thank you all. thank you very much and we appreciate you joining us. we're going to move over to some photos. 3, 2, 1, turn that dirt! >> we're in business!

>> good morning and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am the chair aaron peskin shortly to be joined by supervisor catheri stefani. our clerk is mr. victor young. mr. young, do you have any

announcements? >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 emergency to protect the city and the public, the board of supervisors chamber room is closed. members will be participating in the meeting remotely and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. available on channel 26 and sfgovtv.org. comments or opportunities to speak during public comment period are available via phone by calling (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 187 277 0610 then press pound and pound again. you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line.

best practices are to speak clearly and slowly and turn down your tv or radio. at victor.young@sfgov.org. it will be included as part of the official file. that completes my comments. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. can you please call the first item. >> clerk: mr. chairman, would you like to have a motion to excuse supervisor mandelman? >> chairman: yes. i will make that motion to excuse supervisor mandelman and welcome supervisor stefani. mr. young, a roll call please. >> clerk: yes. >> supervisor mandelman: accused, [roll call]

the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: okay. and, then with regard to item number one which you have called -- i'm sorry. please call item number one. >> clerk: yes. item number one is an around answer amending the administrative code neighborhood anchor business industry the office of small business. and make it a city policy to promote participating businesses. and for commercial eviction defense. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. this item was continued from our last meeting with a substantive amendment. colleagues, we are all in receipt of some nonsubstantive

amendments supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you. >> chairman: . last week, this committee passed amendments to this legislation that i introduced based on feedback from the maul business commission, office of small business and other stakeholders and odd advocates. and i would like to thank them for their feedback to support this legislation. i want to also thank council merchant associations japantown association japanesetown culture and asian pacific islander. i have a few additional amendments today that i believe

my team has shared earlier that are nonsubstantiative and they will do the following. at the small business commission as a nominating entity and second is to reduce the number of neighborhood signatures required for businesses who choose to apply the pe mission and that signature requirement from 50 signatures to reducing to 25 signatures. but to also require the office of small business to produce an annual report on the characteristics and demographics of the businesses included in the industry. these amendments will further ensure that the implementation of this program against the city's racial equity is language access goals and that the industry includes an equitable balance of industries and the type of businesses.

i am sorry that, you know, director dick endrizzi from the office of small business is not available today but my staff is here and i'm here also happy to discuss these amendments and, if you have any questions. i hope i can count on your support on these nonsubstantiative amendments and recommend them to the board with positive recommendation today. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan, and good work. are there any questions or comments? supervisor stefani, i realize you were not in the last meeting where this was discussed, but if you have any questions, this is your chance? >> i don't have any questions. thank you, chair peskin. >> chairman: okay. why don't we open this up to public comment. are there any members of the

public who want to provide public comment on item number 1. >> clerk: yes. members of the public call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id 1872770610. if you haven't already done so please press star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. we have five listeners and one callers at this time. >> chairman: okay. first speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm the director of public policy and partnerships of the golden gate restaurant association. i'm calling on behalf of the local restaurant community we advocate for. restaurants have always served as anchors to their communities and commercial corridors often bringing lights to the neighborhood they operate in. we hope this legislation will provide additional support to

the businesses that need it. we appreciate supervisor chan taking the small commission's feedback into consideration and providing those additional amendments today. we look forward to working with your office and the full board of supervisors on more proms that will uplift our local restaurant community. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. and i look forward to your participation in the refuse reformfast taskforce. so we'll see you in a week. good to hear your voice. are there any other members of the public who would like to comment on item number 1. >> clerk: there are no more callers in line to speak at this time. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. supervisor chan, would you like to make a motion to introduce those nonsubstative amendments.

>> supervisor chan: yes. >> clerk: yes, on the motion to amend. [roll call] the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: and then, supervisor chan, would you like to make a motion -- oh, i see supervisor ronen's name up. are you here for the next item? >> supervisor ronen: i'm here for the next item but i just wanted to chime in and thank supervisor chan for this excellent legislation. i helped write the original legacy business legislation together with my colleague at the time nate alvi and invention of the legacy business program and this is just such a perfect and natural

next step in the development of this whole concept and so i just wanted to thank you and just tell you how excited i am. >> chairman: and, while i do that and i will also say and i neglected to give credit where credit was due because i gave it to david campos the other day when we were at the budget finance committee and neglected to thank then aid hillary ronen and nate alvi for doing the real work that the supervisor gets credit for, but then i also wanted to use this opportunity to remind us all colleagues that we need to fully fund the legacy business program in the up coming budget and i am hopeful that the what really is a $3 million a year need is fully funded and so thank you, supervisor ronen,

for your advocacy around where the rubber hits the road which is the money. and, with that, supervisor chan, would you like to make a motion to send the item as amended to the full board with positive recommendation? >> supervisor chan: indeed. i would like to move that motion. >> chairman: on that motion, mr. clerk, a roll call please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, [roll call] the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: next item, please. >> clerk: yes. next on the agenda is item number two resolution declaring the board of supervisors' intent to call a special municipal election with the prospective statewide recall election. >> chairman: all right. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, chair peskin. colleagues, this item is a

resolution declaring the board of supervisors' intent to call a special municipal election this fall. in april, the campaign to recall governor newsol which means there will have to be a statewide election date set for some time in the fall. in anticipation of that outcome, the city attorney issued that memo random on march 24th with the clarification and guidance on the extremely unusual situation by the recall. the city is not required to hold a statewide but the board may by resolution call for that to happen. last month's announcement of the attentive appointment of the city attorney as the next general manager of the sfpuc and therefore likely up coming resignation of from his elected position as city attorney makes it critical we begin planning now. the city attorney has played a lead watch dog role and the new city attorney will be expected

to investigate the web of bribery and fraud that has been revealed over the past 16 months. to do to without any real or perceived conflict of interest, it's fair that san franciscans get to elect the new city attorney of their choice, of our choice. this resolution confirms our intent to hold a special election to coincide with the statewide election. this will reassure the voters that they will decide who fills critical important city positions. waiting until late summer when state law would allow the board to make a call for the special fall election would be problematic for the elections department because it would allow so little time to prepare for that election. department of election instructor john arms is here to answer any questions from the committee and i hope you will join me and cosponsors president walton, supervisor

haney, and supervisor mar in protecting the san francisco voters and we'll pass this out of committee today with a recommendation to adopt. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor ronen. are there any questions from committee members? i don't see anybody up on the roster. any questions from mr. arms? i have none. why don't we go to public comment. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 187 277 0610. then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. just double checking the count.

one second. it appears that we have seven listeners, but no one in line to speak at this time. >> chairman: okay. in that case, we will close public comment and supervisor ronen, i very much appreciate the fact that you are starting this process in a timely fashion and would like to affix my name as a cosponsor and if there are no comments from committee members, i would like to make a motion to send this item with recommendation to the full board of supervisors for hearing on 25th day of may of 2021, a week from tomorrow. that motion, mr. clerk, a roll call please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, [roll call] the motion passes without

objection. >> chairman: next item, please. >> clerk: yes. next on the agenda is item number 3. motion for approving/rejecting the mare's nomination for reappointment of kimberly brandon to the port commission for term ending may 1, 2025. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. we are joined by commissioner brandon who was first appointed to the port commission. i believe almost a quarter of a century ago in 1997 and has served continuously under a number of mayors and has been appointed by a number of mayors for the last 24 years. i had an opportunity to speak to commissioner brandon this morning and gave her a heads up sergeantway from the last item into a some questions that i will raise regarding her

involvement in the lefty o'doouls foundation that has been run by nick bova with some scrutiny and some charge that is were levelled against mr. boggess that were not against ms. brandon whatsoever. i wanted to start really by asking commissioner brandon for a little background and what's been happening at the court. she currently serves what's been happening under her leadership and involvement and thank her for her service as well as ask her what she foresees for the next four-year period as a commissioner if the board sees fit to reappoint her

as nominated by the mayor and, with that, ms. brandon, the floor is yours. >> commissioner: thank you so much, chair peskin. good morning. and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come before you today, chair peskin, supervisor chan and supervisor stefani. every four years, i have to consider why i want to continue serving as a port commissioner and i have to give the question a long and hard thought because it does take a lot of time and energy and it is a huge commitment. this time, i look back over the years as a native san franciscan, i'm especially excited because i see so many great accomplishments. i was able to see the proposal of oracle park, the renovation of the fary building, pier 1, pier 1.525.

the exploratoryium just to name a few become a reality. vi had the opportunity to be apart of these amazing transformations and in the process make sure there is a fair and level playing field for those doing business with the port. i have been a champion of making sure that the port reflects the citizens of san francisco when it comes to hiring, contracting, leasing, or development practices. i am a huge proopponent of environmental justice issues and have developed a great relationship with president walton's office to make sure that the concentrated environmental impacts that have affected the waterfront communities over the year as decreased. over the past ten years, the port has been able to focus on the southern waterfront.

we are creating two new communities on pier 7. both projects will add to the city's affordable housing needs and provide much needed jobs for our residents. we are especially proud of the opening of the park in industrial shoreline and the opportunity to provide public access and recreation to residents. over the next four years, i would like to focus on what i call the three rs. recovery, resilience, and racial equity. recovery, the port has faced some serious financial challenges. due to the pandemic, the port's revenues have fallen nearly 50%. we are projecting a total of at least $60000000 million this year. $eighty million over the next

two years and $one hundred million over the next five years. this is a public agency with a pre-pandemic budget of only $110 million. based on our best projection, we have a 5-year plus recovery timeframe to return to pre-pandemic revenues. those are primarily due to the port to work with our tenants to make sure they survive the pandemic for pre-pandemic measures. we came up with an emergency program and provided safe for covid testing, food distribution and housing for homeless. resilience. the abort has been working aggressively to strengthen our community. the structure from fisherman's warf to oracle park for the safety of all san franciscans. i cochaired the successful pam

met of bond a and would like to continue working with federal and state legislators, the army corps of engineers, mayor breed, all of and your colleagues and major stakeholders to protect our world class gateway. i have championed racial equity everyone to participate all opportunities at the port of san francisco. the port has hired its first racial equity opportunities manager and completed its racialing fi plan. i've created the sub committee of the commission to make sure it's implemented successfully. if confirmed going forward, i'll be a catalyst to advance policies that position the port to capitalize on economic recovery and i look forward to supporting increased maritime

activities which can generate additional jobs and revenue. but you can expect from me competence that i have balanced job and business growth with the social and economic issues that our great port and city face. as you can see, i'm very passionate about the port and i take my job very seriously. i will continue the work. i continue to look forward to working with the board of supervisors, mayor breed, and the citizens of san francisco on all port related issues. with that said, i ask for your vote and welcome any questions. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner brandon, and that was a good high level summary of all of the good things that

have happened over the quarter of a century and there has been profound transformation of the 1989 earthquake created the ability to tear down that structure that separated the waterfront from downtown and indeed the port capitalized on that opportunity with everything you just said. hurricane way. there's a lot to be proud of and the work that's going on in the southeast is also remarkable at crane cove and beyond that we're all very proud and hopeful for and i was very happy to participate in a small way by helping them get $5 million from the bay restoration authority or the

environmental remediation at 900 ines and so on it goes. i wanted to mention at the onset and i realize this was uncomfortable for all of us, but we would not be doing our jobs if we would not appropriately require to delve into the revelations that resulted after the arrest of the former head of our public works department muhammad nuru in january of 2020 right before the pandemic hit, that resulted in article in february of last year that was about the lefty

o'doule foundation that were made for buying toys for children, but instead ended up being used in 2017 for a for public works that has since been the subject of criminal prosecution of one nick boggess who was the president of the lefty o'doule's foundation. in the examiner that, ms. brandon, you were on the board of that organization. so i and you did have a quote which i very much appreciated and entered you into our conversation this morning that mr. boggess, quote, dooped us all. i just wanted to touch base on that because this is a sensitive and important issue that every supervisor is

focused to getting to the bottom of and making sure this kind of corruption does not permeate city government. so, with that, i wanted to turn it over to you for an explanation about what you knew and if you could share that with this panel. >> commissioner: chair peskin, thank you so much. i read that article this morning and what i'd like to respond is at the time that the joined the lefty o'doule foundation, i thought i was doing it for the right reasons. i was recruited to the board by al cachiato who was the retired police captain and chair of the board. i served with the spd family and the sales of tickets to the san francisco giants.

tony was their retired police chief, lead house keeper and several others and i was the only woman and i thought the mission of the organization was amazing. giving bats and balls and equipment into kids especially in underrepresented communities. because as you see in baseball, you don't see a lot of black players anymore, and so i thought in serving a good purpose with all these wonderful board members. i had no idea what was going on with nick, with muhammad, with all these donations. i have too much of a, i have built a successful career over the last 30 years in wealth management and everything i do, i do because i am passion and i

think the mission was one i wanted to be apart of. i was never involved in anything that i read in that article that you brought to my attention today. i called the board chair and he's like, "he bamboozled us all." so i'm apart of a gang. >> chairman: got it. and thank you for that candid and understandable response and this is obviously not a hearing on the lefty o'doule's foundation for kids, but who was the treasurer of that outfit and did they present, you know, monthly or annual reports about where the money came from and how it was spent? how did that work and did you or other board members ask

questions. the secretary or treasurer and i always say, hey can everybody make sure every member of this board gets the financial reports. >> yes. so i think the board may have met once or twice a year, so not that often and when we did financial, it was like 10,$000, $10,000 or $15,000 in the bank and then they also received grants from different institutions. so there was never anything over $10,000 or $15,000 on those financials. but it had nothing to do with the port or my service on the port. >> chairman: good point and

when i did a quick look at that article this morning, your trash as i meant the port's trash. but, i appreciate that explanation. any questions or comments from committee members, supervisor chan, supervisor stefani. if not, why don't we go to public comment. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 187 277 0610 then press found and pound

again. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. at this time, we have 11 listeners and 5 callers in the queue to speak. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> yeah. hi. good morning, our chair peskin, supervisor stefani and chan. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. my name is linda richardson. we are urging you supervisors for the approval of kimberly brandon reappointment to the port of san francisco so that she can continue her remarkable service to the city and county of san francisco and i know that kimberly did not even

mention that her family's name is anonymous week community service. because of her efforts all these decades, african americans in this city and people of color are able to attend colleges, of the remarkable leadership or have family and contributions in our community. i had the opportunity to work with ms. kimberly brandon as apart of the working group a group of esteemed san franciscans and all works of life that failed the port of san francisco to update their master plan and that to help establish the waterfront of bayview hunter's point on the leadership. as she has just mentioned. the port of san francisco remains the leader of the san

francisco enterprise agency and we need to underscore that. this would be counted on to drive san francisco economic recovery post covid-19. the city needs competent commissioners and staff at the will and we know that the port of san francisco is highly regarded to the second and the commission. >> clerk: speaker, your time has elapsed. thank you very much. can we have the next caller, please. >> good morning, supervisors. assure peskin, stefani and chan. i currently serve on the port commission. i'm here to urge you to move forward and appoint commissioner brandon's reappointment to the port. her historical memory has been invaluable as we have faced the challenges of covid-19 and

enter a stage of recovery. her leadership and guidance has been impeccable and valuable to all the commissioning, to the staff, and to the community. i serve on the equity sub committee with commissioner brandon and her commitment to racial equity. and equity throughout the whole entire water fund is astounding. i do not know how our commission will be able to move forward in such a steadfast way if it was not for the leadership of commissioner brandon. i urge the committee to approve her reappointment and have her partner with all of us to begin the work of recovery, resilience and racial equity in the years ahead. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. good morning, supervisors.

this is pete sitnick. i'm the managering partner of the water bar and epic steaks. i'm calling in today to recommend and support the reappointment of president brandon to the president's post of the port commission. ms. brandon has been a solid advocate for the needs of port tenants, especially the restaurants in balancing those needs with the public desire for the waterfront along with the needs of the port and the needs of the tenants especially during this last year in dealing with the dynamics of the pandemic and the economic recovery that is so vital to keeping the waterfront as a very important part of the city of san francisco. so i would like to recommend and support ms. brandon's reappointment to the president of the port commission.

thank you. >> chairman: well, the port commission decides who the president is, but she is currently the president. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is carol lynn davis and i'm calling in support of kimberly brandon's reappointment to the port. ms. brandon is competent, has a competent leader. she has a unique perspective and experience that will help as we come out of this pandemic. i think we would be remissed not to have her voice at the table. she has been a true advocate for racial equity and inclusion for small businesses to have access to opportunities and jobs at the port and kim

brandon has been a strong advocate for increasing the port's economic opportunities certainly in the southeast sector of the port and i have to personally say as a small business owner that kimberly's support of small businesses that we have had an opportunity to submit our proposals to opportunities for the port with her guidance of breaking those opportunities down for small businesses like mine. so i greatly appreciate that. i work with many departments and the city and county of san francisco and by far the port of san francisco under kim's leadership as the president has made a tremendous difference in our city in keeping small businesses and minority companies here in san

francisco. i am thankful to kimberly and i support her wholeheartedly in her reappointment to continue to serve our city and our port. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. good morning. good morning, board of supervisors. my name is shirley moore and i am the vice president of the bayview field district association one of the oldest in the city and county of san francisco and located in the southeast sector. i am a san francisco resident and have been for the past 35 years. i am a small business owner and i'm calling to support the reappointment of ms. brandon to support director because with her best experience at the

port, we need her leadership to guide us through the pandemic deficit that the port has encountered and we need her vast experience and knowledge on the port to continually growing the port and growing the business and growing businesses in the so that we and also sit on the open space committee in the bayview, so we certainly need ms. brandon's support and experience to keep the port functioning and bring it back to viability because of covid. so we strongly approve her reappointment to the board. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. are there any other members of the public here for this item

number 3? >> clerk: one moment. i'm getting an update, but i believe there are additional speakers. >> chairman: next speaker, please. >> hello, can you hear me? >> chairman: yes, we can. please proceed. >> yeah. my name is everett brandon, i'm kimberly's dad. >> chairman: oh, good. >> yeah. hello. i just want to support her nomination to the board. thank you, supervisors for holding this hearing which is your great responsibility to do and your responsibility to bring in the finest people into the port and i can't think of anyone finer than my daughter. i usually come on just to affirm she's a native san

franciscan. she has spent all her life enjoying the city. she started in bay school, elementary school, high school, state university and she now serves as the president of the state university foundation. so she's been a remarkable gift. i came to san francisco in late '50s as a coral fellow and her legacy is the best thing that's happened to me as a coral fellow. and so totally honored to say that her service over the last 20 years has been apart of the remarkable transform nation that the port has seen and i was there when it was a pretty bleak place and to see it now

and know she's been apart of that development and i guess she serves as president of the commission. so i'm totally honored that you're considering her and i just want to thank you for this opportunity to speak for my daughter. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, mr. brandon. next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm calling to support commissioner brandon's reappointment. she has been a true leader and visionary on the commission and a true champion for equity helping to bring jobs and needed opportunities especially to the southeast sector. so i just wanted to support her reappointment today.

>> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is simon fellgrove and i'm with pacific waterfront partners. just calling to support commissioner brandon's reappointment. i have worked with her, i've worked on the water front since 97 and i was lucky to be selected for piers 1.5, 3, and 5 in '99 and commissioner brandon was among the people who approved our project so, since then, we've done a lot of work with support. some successful, some unsuccessful, but consistently, i would say that commissioner brandon has been tough. she's a tough negotiator, she's been balanced. and, right now we're enjoying a negotiation with the port for another project and i just want to say i've always had this

passion for equity and inclusion and diversity and it is a time for me towards the end of my career and for commissioner brandon, for all of us, i'm very excited to hit it out of the ball park and i think having her on the commission is going to help us achieve our goals for equity, inclusion, and diversity. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you, mr. snelgrove. next speaker, please. >> clerk: yes. just before we get to that next speaker, i'd just like to let people know if you've not already done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. at this time, we have two callers in line to speak. >> chairman: next speaker, please. >> good morning, chair peskin

and supervisors. this is deborah walker, i'm currently on the arts commission and have served for nearly two decades prior to thatten 0 the building inspection commission so i'm especially grateful that you all are paying attention to what's going on with that department, with all of our partnerships with both businesses and nonprofits. so i appreciate it. i'm calling in support of kimberly brandon, i deal a lot right now especially with the arts organizations along the water front. i know that the port and redevelopment are different areas, but all along the water front there are long time projects that have been in the works for decades and it's really important that we have someone on the port commission who understands the history, the connection to the

communities that are affected along the waterfront, including our artist community which has really been devastated by covid. i just want to speak for the board. i know it's going to be helpful in moving some of these, especially the infrastructure projects going forward. there's also the threat of climate change which is going to create water rides along the water. i know chair peskin, you're well aware of that. we need her on the port and i really appreciate your time this morning. so thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner walker. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is herman badget, i would just like to applaud ms. brandon on her leadership over the past two decades on the port and for all her efforts

during covid and assisting a number of the smaller local business enterprises in the southeast sector. without her leadership, a lot more of the smaller businesses would have suffered and i just wanted to have the opportunity to applaud her and i look forward to her continued leadership as the president of the port. >> chairman: thank you, next speaker. >> hello, i work with small and micro-lbes in district 10 and i'm calling to show my support for the reappointment of commissioner brandon. i think she's done so much for the waterfront especially in the southeast and has done to represent the communities especially where a lot of the development is happening and i'd like to see her

reappointing. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is noel bonner here in san francisco. the port of san francisco was the first contract in 2017, and, since that time president brandon has president brandon has ensured that small businesses not only have access to contracting opportunities at the port, bethey are used and put to work after winning contracts. her dedication to the port has spanned 25 years and she has been a responsible steward of

many projects. as we consider the tremendous effort that will be required to usher in a brighter economic future, we need leaders to know how to lead are committed to racial equity and know the community. i can't imagine a better reappointment to the port commission and hope you will support her today. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, next speaker. >> clerk: i believe that was our last caller in the queue. >> chairman: okay. i don't see any members in the chat. i want to thank commissioner brandon for her almost quarterless service and her forth rate questions that needed to be asked and if there is no objections, i would like to make a motion to send this

nomination to the full board with positive recommendation and seeing nobody in the chat box which is now working on my computer, a roll call please. >> clerk: chair peskin, would you like to amend the motion? >> chairman: oh, yes. excuse me. let us remove the word "reject" in the title and "removed" and so it says -- we'll remove those words. >> clerk: on the motion to amend, [roll call] the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: and then on the motion as amended, a roll call please. >> clerk: yes, on that motion, mandelman excused,

[roll call] . the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: next item, please. >> clerk: next on the agenda is item number 4. hearing to consider appointing three members terms ending april 30th, two thousand twenty-two and four members terms ending april 30th, 2023, to the commission of animal control and welfare. >> chairman: okay. just by way of a little bit of background, we have some expired terms that go back a little ways 2021. and seat 7 requires a licensed veterinarian and we don't have that before us. so we really have six seats that are before us today with eight applicants, four of them encumbents and no application

for seat 7, although i do hear that that may be forth coming and we may actually consider that at our next meeting and maybe send it as a committee report so we can have a full in the meantime complement of commissioners at our meeting on the 25th of may. so i will call the applicants starting with ann marie who has been on the commission since 2012. ms. fortier, the floor is yours. >> good morning supervisors. i want to let you know that i have been serving on this commission sense 2012. at that time, i was a young parent in the city with two dogs.

i was a dog guardian, still am and i noticed there seemed to be this perceived conflict between parents, families, domestic animals, wildlife, and i wondered about this and i thought our city could do a bet job about educating our city about dogs, cats, and the wildlife. since then, i have been the secretary and i've also been the chairperson. in early 2020, i asked my colleague nina arona to be chairperson of the commission. she has done a stellar job. i would also like to use my time to recommend the reappointment of my colleague nina irani to keep it going during covid by holding online remote meetings and my

colleague jane tobin who has a vast knowledge of animal welfare issues. she's been a great asset to us and not to forget mr. michael angelo torres who has been critical in making sure our progressions have been functioning during this difficult time and while doing that lending his voice to the animals and the people of our city. i request that you consider all of my colleagues applicants and reappointment at this time. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, ms. fortier. if seeing no questions from members, why don't we move on to heidi hofer. >> yes. good morning supervisors and rules committee. thank you so much for your time and your consideration of my appointment today. in terms of my qualifications,

there were two words i'd like to highlight beyond my application and my written introduction that i sent to supervisors last week via e-mail. one is my experience and actually passion for san francisco animal care and control. over five years ago, i started fostering kittens for tony's kitten rescue, and, in that time, as well as bringing myself and my family a lot of joy, it's so much experience and admiration with a.c.c., the staff, the volunteers, the work they do. i've been there literally hundreds of times picking up new kittens, returning kittens, vaccinations, spay neuter surgery and a lot of medical visits because kittens feral

kittens are very fragile. i've seen the devotion of the staff. the adoptions, reunions, but really difficult, painful experiences, relinquishment, injured wounded animals, people that are violent and dangerous because they're so angry that their animals have been impounded and just in awe of the work that the staff and the volunteers do there, i would so much like to support them going forward due to my passion for them, i did for my work in 2017 actually organized a fundraiser for friends of a.c.c. and organized over 100 people to make pet toys, pet beds and donate almost a thousand dollars to friends of a.c.c. also, i think my other

volunteer experience is to related areas what would add sinering to the welfare the not only our animals but the city itself. i'm a volunteer and facilitator for national alliance on mental illness and i know how important animals are to peoples' mental health. i've connected with my past doctors and also in the covid era i've done in-person zoo or meet and greets with potential adopters and i see how vital animals are to peoples' emotional being. our daughter wouldn't have been able to go off to college without emotional support animals and disassociation. i go to our local dog park twice a day. i see how it improves not only

the animal socialization, but people socialization, their engagement with one another. and helping of all be connected. i also have experience in emergency services. i'm a certified volunteer with the sf fire department and i know the importance of taking animals, peoples' beloved animals into account in emergency planning and services. also in past, i was a senior companion volunteer to a 97-year-old woman who has since passed and i saw how much delight wild birds brought to her life. as a 23-year-old resident, i'm recently an empty-nester. i'm approaching retirement. i'd like to devote my time, energy, and passion into making

it a better place. i want to leverage my policies and actions that will benefit our domestic and wild animals as well as the city as a whole. i'd like to see the commission examine. number one, the elimination of the use of poisons to kill rodents. not only are these poisons cruel and inhumane to the rodents, they have the unintended consequences of killing our wild life like owls as well as dogs and outside cats when they adjust the carcasses. i'd like to see more pet-friend housing policies. which improves the mental health of our citizens. i'd like to see more policies to create more responsible pet ownership and education especially to reduce the huge amount of dog waste bag and

unbagged litters our streets and parks i would also like to help our city's small businesses by encouraging pet supplies in local pet stores and not online. it encourages that neighborhood connection. with the pandemic, hopefully winding down to closely monitor the volumes of animal relink wishments i hope that doesn't happen, but we need to be prepared for it. supervisors and rules committee, i'm excited and honored by this opportunity to serve our city and our animals. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. our next applicant is irina ozernoy. go ahead. >> hello. good morning.

good morning, chair peskin. and victor who was vital in helping organize this. my name is irina ozernoy. i'm excited to be a candidate for a seat on the commission. professionally, i'm a marketing professional working in tech with a background in p.r. communications. i'm a writer and editor and story teller. professionally, i've engaged in treaty outreach, relationship building amongst various communities. and, as a life long animal lover, i truly believe my care for animals, my commitment to wild life, rescue rehabilitation and my interest and education make me qualify for being a member of the commission. i grew up in san francisco and as a child, as a young teenager, i volunteered at the san francisco zoo in the nature program communicating with the

public and explaining animal behavior and animal details. i've been promoted to the animal resource center and volunteered for a number of years in actual animal care because i had at the time wanted to be an animal behavioralist. although, my life and career took me on a different path, i have continued my volunteering and civic responsibility in various wildlife care groups with urban wildlife rescue. i mentioned that i'm a story teller as i'd like to share a story. last year, in my own neighborhood events around animal trapping caused me to do research on the fish and wildlife game code and california laws. i discovered that a lot of what's happening is because of

misinformation. you know, right now, it's spring which means a lot of animals are breeding and they're doing it in peoples' backyards and i'm seeing people complaining on social networks like raccoons, skunks, gofers, other small creatured and these ranging from glue traps and poison to recommending what wild life nuisance operators or exterminators should be called in to the job and what i've seen is there's a lot of misinformation. people really believe that poison poison and take it some ways away. they'll relocate it to a safe

park where and so the only two options are as either of you probably know, but because of misinformation, people really think it's not that at all. and i think that what needs to be done is education and that's what i'm truly passionate about and i would love to do if i am selected to serve on the commission is outreach and education and first of all explain to the community and the city leadership that some of these practices are not only productive and illegal, they're also hue main. i feel like we're all here together on this planet and this beautiful city. we are stewards of this land and i feel like this commission is a way to give voice to the voiceless, the creatures that

depend on us for health and welfare which why i would love to serve on it. thank you so much. >> thank you. our next applicant is iris chan. >> clerk: yes. ms. chan is currently on mute. if you press star 6 on the telephone line, you can provide your comments. >> hello. >> clerk: yes. please proceed. >> hi. good morning. thank you so much for having me today. i just wanted to briefly talk about why animal welfare is so important to me. when i think of animal welfare, i think what's important to our city and also the wild animals, the animals that do eat, the animals that they wear and, you

know, learning with bachelor's of animal science from u.c. davis that these animals they have emotions. they are very intelligent and we really need to think about the way humans and animals have relationships. starting with, you know, not calling our companion animals as pets because they're family. a lot of people consider them family and during covid even though there were a lot of ideas to help our elderly. we they could have been afraid of going to the store to buy food and that's something i think this committee could be a big part of helping those two are afraid of pep or what would happen to them and i think this

committee could also really educate the public starting with the young children where children are always so curious about why we do this or why we do that whether it's starting meatless mondays at schools and educating them why all animals are important or starting a humane education program and there's more that i would really love to talk about, but i was an intern at the san francisco zoo and part of their animal wellness and behavior program where we really observed these animals and these are wild animals and they really should not be captive but we want to make sure they can live the best possible life making sure that they aren't

bored out of their minds, making sure they have enrichment making sure they have a positive experience and really understanding where these animals are coming from. so i really want to i really hope we can achieve transparency and all these animals we come in contact with in san francisco. so thank you for this time. >> chairman: and, ms. chan, you currently hold a bachelor's of science. >> i hold a bachelor's of science in animal science and a master's of arts in animal studies. >> chairman: thank you for that information. are there any questions from committee members? thank you. seeing none. thank you, ms. chan. why don't we move ton to jane tobin, who's seeking reappointment. >> sorry about that. i'm starting my camera here.

can you see me okay? >> chairman: yes. we can. >> okay. good morning supervisors and thank you for considering my identifications for the animal control and welfare commission. how i might represent the general public. you know, i can start first with my experience and animal well favor which began in 1992 as an adoption counselor at the a.c.c. and san franciscans were deceived about its purpose and that's putting a.c.c. on the map became a personal goal of mine. started by creating their first event in 1993. it was fun. a free public awareness building.

we had working dogs, animal nonprofit organizations and the public featured and a parade led by the mountain police. judges were city officials and celebrities and it was this really good wholesome fun event and it served its purpose and really did put a.c.c. on the map as the city's open door shelter. in two thousand, i along with five others found the nonprofit friends for animal care and control. we raised additional funds for the city's shelter. so i served as president of the board until 2015 when the term expired, but during that time, friends funded the behavioral and training program, rescue partner grants to many a.c.c.s

partners and many in critical care. we also offered toy and treat making workshops, employing eager volunteers of all ages from 5 to 80. education was always part of the mission. we brought a.c.c. into it. we know kids love hands-on learning and we saw our role as building future stewards of the animal community. that kind of interaction leads an impression of others who have mentioned as well. sometimes it dispels it like snakes are gross. so in 2015, i went to u.s.f. to get my masters in nonprofit management and, at the same time, i joined the animal well favor commission and was appointed there. i now serve as vice chair of the commission as well as advisor on the raks and parks committee. i'm so happy to hear others are

applying for the same contribution efforts and education efforts. graduate school and the friends's board. we have an annual work plan now and individual work plan. both help structure our agendas and provide format. i also added public education series and, in that time we brought presenters such as sf zoo who shared their contributions. as part of the respect and advocacy campaign. sf dog shared how they pivoted in the pandemic to provide free dog food at a local food bank in the mission. in may, we shared the facts on local and northern california facts. we know our survival depends on their survival and we believe through public education, greater awareness of these

issues lead to an informed active community and animal well favor concerns. so we've provided some unique and animal human volunteer needs. again, the experience of knowing the animal community support organizations helped me address their needs for dog food, leashes, bowls, medical support, vaccines. on the 2021 commission work plan. we started researching ways to keep human guardians and their companion animals together in times of crisis and crisis to us included it's what people were experiencing during the pandemic maybe natural disasters, domestic abuse in treatment and persons experiencing homelessness. that work is ongoing and thanks to the hard work of

commissioner torres, commissioner fortier and chairperson irani, it's been thorough and a really pleasure. i would be delighted to continue the work we started in 2021. but i also want to note that there's a role the supervisors play in the animal commission as well, we can learn a lot from one another we'd like to hear what pressing animal issues you see in your district, but our goal really is to further animal welfare issues in san francisco. and we see we really can't do

it unless we have an open channel to you. so, again, thanks for considering my qualifications, it would be an honor to serve on the commission again and thank you. >> chairman: thank you, ms. tobin and thank you for your work and thank you for your invitation to interact with the board of supervisors which i'm happy to take you up on. and, with that, we will go to michael angelo torres, a proud resident of the third supervisortorial. >> good afternoon supervisors. >> chairman: it's still morning. >> of course. thank you, victor young who's always helpful to me. i'm very happitor here to speak today. just like my colleagues before me, i also want to give a strong recommendation as well that you please also support

and appoint commissioner fortier, commissioner tobin, and commissioner irani. my name is michael torres. i'm a native californian born in east los angeles and raised in orange county. i've lived in the union square for the past 12 years where i'm currently the operations manager. as a san franciscan, i have been -- i have a proud background in community involvement including working with preevengs point needle exchange and community united against violence. i've also helped organize anti-war marchs, and actions with peoples context and political campaigns including working on one of gloria rivas and i also did work on kamala harris, campaign for the city of san francisco attorney. i currently help to prepare

food for distribution to the community. i was appointed to the commission of animal well favor back in september 2019, and i currently serve as the commission secretary. during my time on the commission i've worked with the general public including implementing a reporting process to hopefully address the transparency concerns that have come to us from some members of the public. as commission secretary, i've helped with many of our staff most specifically helping with the transmission, assisting with the migration of our commission web page from the sfgov.org site to the new sf.gov website. i have been working on having our commission name changed to the animal commission. if i have the privilege of being reappointed, i'd like reaching out to your offices to

make this change happen. currently, we're kind of an orphan commission. as commission. for years of volunteers as well as almost ten years of personal experience caring for senior animals including those who have special needs. in addition to my love and compassion for animals, my ability to work both independently and part of a team. i've enjoyed the time i spent serving on the commission. thank you very much for inviting me again and thank you for your consideration. >> chairman: thank you, mr. torres. seeing no questions from committee members. we will move on to nina irani, also an encumbent and i

apologize. your name is spelt one part incorrectly. it is mina not nina. and, with that, the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, chair peskin. i appreciate that clarification. good morning chair peskin, supervisor chan, supervisor stefani, and also clerk young who is as mentioned always very helpful to our commission. serving my first term as a commissioner and as chairperson and also secretary has been a wonderful opportunity to support policies and people alike. like the good food purchasing standards adopted by the city last year and others were initiated by members of the public who have come to the commission for help. supporting activists exposing conditions and yet others have been initiated at the

commission. like compliance on california's prohi bigs from caged animals and our support for state bills encouraging plant based school meals transitioning away from animal agriculture which we are working to endorse through your state legislation committee. this year, as commissioner tobin xhengsed, we're also focusing on ways to better support animals and people in crisis. and, as we research these issues, we find another issue deserving our attention. helping low-canning residents afford residence for their animals. we've accomplished a lot but we have a lot more to accomplish and we hope to engage more with our supervisors and the rest of our city government and as

commissioner torres and commissioner tobin mentioned, we are dedicated to find a contact so they can be more efficiently and effectively addressed. and worked with you can benefit all the people and animals we're working to serve. so we hope you may be able to work with us to resolve that and i hope to continue to work alongside my colleagues, commissioners fortier, commissioner tobin, and the commissioners applying today to address the animals in our city. >> chairman: thank you. and seeing no questions. and last but not least rocky chau. >> chairman: is rocky chau

there? mr. clerk and ms. fortier if you would do the kindness of turning your cameras off as is our protocol. mr. clerk, have we heard from rocky chau who has applied and has a couple letters of support in the file? >> clerk: i have not received any additional information from mr. chau. i do not see him logged in at this time. >> chairman: okay. why don't we go to public comment. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 187 277 0610,

then press found and found again. if you haven't already done so, please press star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the city indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. i believe we have one person in line to speak at this time. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> chairman: we can hear you now, mr. pillappeal. please proceed. >> how'd you guess. david pillpell. so i'm calling to support the appointment of irina ozernoy. we went to school before i met you, supervisor peskin. i think she would do a fine job on the commission with her concern for animals and per experience. i don't know the other

encumbent members or applicants, but it sounds like you are overflowing with good and diverse applicants all of whom care greatly about animal control and animal welfare and so i wanted to support irina and the good work of this commission. thanks very much. >> chairman: okay. are there any other members of the public for item number 4 for public comment. >> clerk: that completes the queue for public comment on this item. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. and, first, i just want to start by thanking all of the applicants for applying and reapplying and for the encumbents for their service over the last years. this is always a tough decision when we have more applicants. i will colleagues, seeing no action from my colleagues on the roster.

i'll take a stab at it based on the experience and the qualifications and the testimony we've heard as well as well as balancing gender and race relative to representation on this body. so i would respectfully suggest and i'm totally open to other suggestions that we continue the four encumbents. that would be ms. fortier for seat number 1. ms. irani for seat number 3. ms. tobin for seat number 5. and ms. tobin for seat number 6 and i would nominate if there's no objection to that colleagues, i would make that a motion and, supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. i just want to make a brief

comment. i support the recommendation that you just made. i just want to put it out there that i'm very excited about working with the commission of animal control and welfare giving the pandemic that in the past i wanted to adopt an animal and realizing that the shelter has been really empty and people really are taking up the animals that like never before which is a great thing, but we also know that now we're transitioning out of the pandemic, we see that people are experiencing anxiety returning to work along with their animal just move forward to the commission addressing some of those issues along with our department and then also i want to take on and put it out there. i know our former supervisor

katie tang i look forward to working with the commission and our city departments to bring back kitty hall to city hall. i'm very excited about that and i reallily truly think our commission of animal control and well favor in san francisco has been some of the most progressive commissions in california, in the bay area when it comes to animal rights issues. so i'm very excited and privileges to be on this committee appointing these candidates and reing the encumbents to their seats. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. and kitty hall was definitely a highlight of the year. and i promise that i will be there and, with that, mr. clerk, a role call on the motion. >> clerk: yes. just to confirm the seats.

i have the appointment of annemarie fortier to seat 1. nina irani to seat 3. jane tobin to seat 5 and michael angelo torres to seat 6. >> chairman: thanks correct. yes. on that motion, roll rom the motion passes without objection. clrm and then, mr. clerk, can you read items 5 through 8 together. >> clerk: yes item number 5. item number 6 is a motion

reappointing supervisor gordon mar term ending june 30th, 2023, and item number 7 is reappointing supervisor hillary ronen as an alternative member to the association of the bay area government board and number 8 is a motion reappointing supervisor mandelman term ending june 30th, 2023, to the association of the bay area governments executive board. >> chairman: is there any public comment on items number 5 through 8? >> clerk: yes. member officer the public please call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 187 277 0610. then press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, please press star to speak.

please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. as of last check, there are no one in line to speak for public comment on these items. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed and, colleagues, if there's no objection, i would like to send items 5 through 8 to the full abort of supervisors with a positive recommendation. mr. clerk, a roll call please. >> clerk: on that motion, mandelman excused, [roll call] the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: we are adjourned.

>> my nave is jeffrey and i'm the director of the san francisco municipal transportation agency and i am so excited to be here and to inago rate the restart of the san francisco subway system and our f-line. it has been a long 14 months and we are not out of the woods yet. i am so grateful to my hard-working teams. everyone who has been work to go try to get service restarted. muni is the life blood of san francisco. it's how college students get to school and it's how people

around and how we function as a place and brings service back is absolutely essential to san francisco's economy so with no further adieu, i would like to introduce our mayor, london breed. [applause] >> thank you, jeff. first let's give it up for the official band of san francisco! the gay and lesbian band. i don't know about you, but i'm excited to be here. we're listen to go live music for a change. san francisco is truly coming alive. and one of the things that happened at the beginning of this pandemic, so many of us basically said, i hope san francisco will do a better job at some of the construction projects so that they don't interfere with my commute to work or to school when the city begins to reopen.

well, in some cases we couldn't necessarily do that. but the good news is, we have an incredible leader in jeff tumlin and an amazing department m.t.a. and the commissioner who is joining us here today. they knew this was an opportunity and an opportunity to make significant improvements to muni. because let me tell you, as we begin to open our city and begin down the path of recovery, having a good public transportation system is going to be critical. now, some of the nuts and bolts, mostly don't sound really exciting to people, but they're exciting to the people who ride muni, who for example, want to access the internet when they're underground, this is something i've been work on since i was supervisor and scott wiener was helping for this cause. here is the good news, a lot of

the work we were able to do is making it possible to make muni more efficient than ever. it was a struggle, yes, but we are in a very, very good place. we're asking for people to be patient. so here is what we have planned. first of all, the f-line, the historic cars, the museum, that's over there that talks about the history of rail in san francisco and just how important it is, bringing those cars back is really important, not just for transportation but for tourism and the f-line that goes from the castro to fisherman's wharf, those with the open covers and the closed covers, those lines are starting back tomorrow. [applause]

under ground. i know we missed the different underground trains to take us from downtown all the way to the west side in rapid speed when it's working right, right. muni underground is coming back in effect tomorrow. we did a lot of the underground work and you know how sometimes you get stuck in that tunnel at church street, and you are like, man, and all the trains get backed up because our system wasn't necessarily equipped to handle the number of riders that we see and jeff had the foresight to look at this along with a number of experts in transportation and we're going to combine the t and the k line and we're going to make that line more efficient but let me tell you, i'm most excited about this because this is something that i've been working on, again, since supervisor. they will have two car trains in

every instance instead of one for all those folks who wait where i used to campaign at when i was supervisors at the early stages of my political soft involvement, it was providing better service for then june a. i'm excited about it. just imagine being late to work and school all the time because of then june a. the other thing that will happen, which is really great, i think, is we'll have wifi underground and publicard and better mow efficient service so i can tell you this but you are going to experience it. you will fee.

i was listed a a celebrity announcement and your mayor welcome you you back to san francisco muni train and that includes the voice of renelle brooks moon and jerry rice and there's also one other person ledge on dar tee actor bd wong so great voices including mine so this is a good day for san francisco and we have a need to make sure our transportation system is up and running and getting us from point a to point b. i want you all to return to muni and i want you all to be patient with us we're keeping our cars clean and keep service working more and i want to take this

opportunity to especially thank many of the drivers of our trains and our buses because let me tell you, this pandemic has hit our city hard and when you look at the city data for those impacted by covid it was many of our drivers who were on the front line and they put their lives on the line to continue to make sure our essential workers and people got to and from work and i really want to thank them and thank you all so much and thank you for the work that you continue to be there for the people of san francisco and make sure you treat your drivers with kindness and respect because they go through a lot in this city trying to get people around. all the staff and all the parking control officers and all the of the folks who have been out there trying to direct

traffic and do all the things that make sure we can efficiently get from point a to point b. there's a new day in san francisco, i appreciate you all being here and we're here with a number of officials that will speak and i've went on for way too long but at this time i want to introduce someone who has been a true champion of public transportation for this city. i miss him when he was in san francisco fighting the good fight but i'm excited about his fight in sack ra men co and it's why the government is making a big announcement about a significant increase in support for transportation no one is aggressive and support, calling financial support for this city and this state for public transportation to make it better and more efficient for all of us than our state senators, scott wiener. [applause] >> thank you, madam mayor.

i have to say, i do miss when the mayor and i were on the board of supervisors together and we were probably a little irritating to m.t.a. at times because we were pushing and pushing but in the end, we were all able to work together to make muni run better and so thank you madam mayor for your leadership and thank you to jeff tumlin, who i was so excited when he agreed to come in at the m.t.a. it's an exceptional leader and visionary and jeff and i actual low road muni from castro and market today. it felt like the old days when we would get on muni and take the f-market down market street and now that's going to be the new days because the f is coming back and that is so exciting. so, i have pretty long relationship with muni. i've been a regular daily muni rider since 1997.

obviously in sacramento i'm not riding it. it was how i commuted and i didn't drive my car, i took muni. thank you again to the muni drivers who have gotten me around for 23, almost 24 years here and who have stood with us during this terrible pandemic. and so, this matters to me personally but it also matters to my community. so many people in this city are dependent on muni. they don't have a car. muni is how they get around. it's how they get to work and to the doctor and it's how they go shopping. and so the idea, when we were starting to hear things, during the pandemic, about would -- there we go. [ bells ringing ] i'll wait a second.

>> i'm compete against the bell. so, when we were hearing during the pandemic, that what would muni be like after covid. would muni still be around in the same way? were we going to loose lines? what bart going to be around in the same way. for a lot of us, it was really scary because san francisco would not be san francisco without muni. san francisco won be the transit oriented climate change friendly place that we are without muni and it's part of not just our life blood but our core values as a city and as a community and so i am so excited that muni will come back as strong as ever many of the subway, the f-market and we'll keep these bus lines riding because so many people rely on the buses as much as we love the subway and i am optimistic about where this agency is going to heaved.

i want to really thank congress and our federal government for throwing repeated life lines to muni, to bart, to all of our transit systems and had congress not stepped up and dramatically funded transit, multiple times, we would not be here today. i don't know where muni would be. i don't know how we would get reopened. how do you do that? where would bart be. so what the federal government did, was absolutely life saving for these transit systems. and we are working very hard at the state level toll make sure that this amazing budget surplus that we have, because of income tax and because of our stimulus relief, that we're using a portion of that for transit and other sustainable transportation. and the governor just made a big announcement today and i am very, very excited about what we're going to be able to put in as a state. thank you to everyone. thank you muni for helping get

us around and let's keep fighting and making this system as amazing as it can be. thank you. >> i am so grateful to have a state senator who i can randomly run into on my morning commute on muni. i am so grateful to mayor breed and scott keener's support and helping us come back and also to the federal government because we would not be here today. we're also going to be grateful to the state for using some of their surplus on capital investments because while we've made a lot of progress in the subway over the last 14 months, we still have a jenky system that runs on floppy disks so things will be better tomorrow but they're not going to be perfect. what i can promise you is we will continue to be honest with the public about the state of our conditions and what our service is like and what you can

do if things don't work as well as we moment and that has been my over all strategy as director sfmta. we're grateful for community partners who have helped us come back and continue to advocate for our success. one of our port post art partners is market street railway and so i would like to introduce. >> thank you, jeff. isn't it great to be vaccinated. let's all thank the mayor in her leadership in bringing us through the fog of this pandemic. [applause] you have been a great light to this city, mayor breed. thank you to jeff and julie and the entire muni team, mta team.

from the very top all the way through the ranks to the front line people who made this happen. you know, a famous leader in america, another great woman leader, said it takes a village. that's what made the return of the f-line possible. it was all up and down the mta pulling together with operators taking the initiatives to say we want to come back and how can we help? they helped design the protective barriers you will see in the street car as it pulls up. in the all the street cars you ride on the f-line, you will be able to be safe and this is a very positive development. it was a real collaborative effort and the shop team put them in at an unprecedented pace. i have never seen such collaboration in my 40 years around muni so i want today hear a shout out for the operators and the maintainers. [applause] also i want to give a shout out to all the business leaders and

the neighborhood groups, the cbds and bids and all those alphabet agencies that bring our businesses, our small businesses together to make their neighborhoods a better place to do business and they stepped up, they talked to their district supervisors and they talked to jeff and they got results and the folks in castro, and andrea yellow the people up in the wharf, randel scott and on and on and on, they've all done a great job. are there any neighborhood representatives here? and robbie silver from downtown. and karen flood from union scare. they were all here. you guys were all great. one more shout out is to michael dellard, an old friend who has been a stalwart businessman here at one market restaurant for a long time and he stepped up to us and said what can we do to get the f-line going and by the

way, we would like to give you a merge of every proceeds from every ruben we sell in our new newdeli. you help us when you help yourself to a ruben. it's a brooklyn sandwich but it's a san francisco generosity. we appreciate that. it's all part of our san francisco village. it's a city that honors its her tige while it strives to correct mistakes we've made in excluding people, denigrating people and keeping people down. we work to make this city better all the time and that's what our future is. that fits right in with our organization's motto, which is keeping the past, present in the future. and we are glad that these street cars are going back to work, helping to rebuild our economy, and helping to carry people where they want to go and helping to draw visitors back to

our city. we're going to be riding on this wonderful boat tram and that vehicle was brought by our non-profit along with a second one to san francisco years ago and our board is led by our chair carmen clark, who is here and i want to shout out to. carmenwho used to run muni. and our board members, ron fisher and cat siegel are here. we are proud to have done that and told the story of how for transit built a livable city and keeps renewing it. we're open, go in and get a free calender from us because the rest of the year is going to be a lot better than the months we've had. thank you to our mayor, thanks to this team. thank you all, very much. [applause] >> thank you, rick. well, many of us spent the pandemic behind our computer screens at home and in our pa

jam a. the entire sfmta front line crews have been out there everyday during the pandemic getting essential workers to work. i am so grateful for their resilience and hard work through all of this. they're why i work the hours that i do. and so i would like to introduce one of our operators, alena galloway who worked at agency for over 25 years with 19 years of safe driving experience and someone whom we rely upon for her direct advice. >> good afternoon. there's some expressions of gratitude in order. thank you to london breed, union, roger moranko, market street railway, rick lobsher,

president, engineer body and pcc shop for their craftmanship when building the operators safetien close you'res. san francisco board of supervisor, citizens advisory committee, thank you to sfmta for placing the f-line back in business it takes a village to get our float rolling again. from castro and market to the west field shopping center past the railway museum and down the embarcadero to pier 39 and on to fisherman's wharf. the f-line transporting a diverse ridership in our diverse city on a uniquely diverse historic street cars. from all around the world, our cars are so unique, that people travel far and wide to get photo

ops or a ride. now along with san francisco's resilience, and survival instincts, that is something to be proud of. it's an honor and a pleasure to be a operator in the city of san francisco. ladies and gentlemen, please help me help you a arrive at your destination safely by wearing your mask and practices all cdc guidelines. thank you and i'll see you out there. [applause] getting through the pandemic has required all sorts of new partnerships. it's required a depth of pippa cross almost every city department and so, i would like to introduce the director of the ports, elaine forbes, who is here along with our key policymakers. including sharon lie who is on the sfmta board and of course,

member of the board of supervisors ahsha safai. and in order to introduce our last speaker, i want to say while the sfmta is mostly about mobility, we are about so many other things as well. our vehicles are a symbol of san francisco and support the visitor economy. we're also a primary driver of supporting small business success which is why we have been such staunch supporters of the shared spaces program from the very beginning and one of the many reasons we're so happy to be bringing back the f-line the way it supports small business recovery and so now i'd like to introduce joseph who is the owner of a restaurant here at the ferry building to say a few words. [applause] thank you, mayor breed for in inviting me to speak and forgive me if i sound a little nervous, i'm a baker not a speaker. i also want to say thank you to

the sfmta for reopening the f-line. i run a bakery line and it's a charge. i can't imagine running a whole transit line. my name is joey and my wife and i opened in 2008 and which started at farmers' markets which led us to a spot in the ferry building. in that time, we've been in the ferry building for 10 years, in that time we've enjoyed the crowds shoulder and shoulder crowds of international travelers, bay area commuters, and then also experienced charges more recently of of course the last year with the pandemic. with the ferry building being opened during the whole time, you know, it gave us and our colleagues in the marketplace

the opportunity to continue to service our communities and to give our ploy's a place to work and really was a lifeline to keep and stay open. so, with that, with the farmers market and the marketplace, i've been firsthand witness to see what public easily accessible transportation does to a small economy and it not only brings more traffic into the areas but it also brings more diverse crowds. i think some of our customers would probably not make it to us without places without the f line. i think right now, as we see san francisco and the bay area seeing air recovery, it's a

great time to be opening up the f line. not only is it a beautiful streetcar, it's also a need that allows bringing people into the area. i think the cable cars are the world, the world can have the cable cars but the street cars are ours, they're very san francisco. i'm really looking forward to welcoming back our customers and really want to saw thanks to everybody. thank you, very much. [applause] >> thank you so much, everyone for being here. i just want to take a moment to say how excited i am to see

elaine a here today and i didn't recognize her because she still looks the same since i was a kid. her grandmother, miss redman, used to press my hair and all the kids' hair in the neighborhood in the back of her house. you can get a press for $8 and if you didn't have enough money, her grandmother would let you slide and that was, her grand mother was less than 100 pounds, the cutest woman you want to see but the toughest woman you want to meet. those hands were brutal. she would get your hair straight as i nails. i'm so excited to see her, someone who has been working for muni for so many years. along with so many people who have an incredible history in this city. and that same history that is existed for some time are resilience and how we've been able to look back and use the examples and the mistakes and the challenges that existed in the past to bring us forward towards a future is exactly how we're going to recover as a city. i'm looking forward to it. i'm excited about it and let me

also just sigh, it's small business month in san francisco for the month of may, stop buy some of the small businesses and provide support and go to a restaurant and different places all over the city. hop on muni to do that and smile and say hi to your muni driver and enjoy and be patient as we continue down our path of recovery for our city. thank you all for joining us here today.

>> i'd like to welcome the members of the public who are watching or streaming us live as well as those who will be participating in