>> clerk: thank you. caller, if your television is on, this will not be in synch for you. >> interpreter: maybe it's a different language. is it possible to get in another language? i guess they're not responding. >> clerk: okay. well, operations, next caller in the queue. >> oh, hi, this is josephine, representing 200 families in

visitacion valley. 74% of residents oppose this [inaudible] they would have your hearing room in regular time, but they can't even call in because of the tech. this store is too big and clustered. this doesn't provide services welcomed and desired by the neighbors. mayor ed lee would have been rolling in his grave if he heard his name being misappropriated. don't put people ahead of people, and don't put business ahead of people. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please?

welcome, caller. all right. we're going to circle back to the other caller who perhaps was not in synch with -- otherwise, this is going to be the last caller, i'm told by operations. >> hello? >> clerk: welcome. >> hello? can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, just begin your comments. >> i'm sorry. this is a bit of an inconvenience, but there were actually a few callers before that were mentioning about opposing the opening of the cannabis dispensary at 5801 mission street and not the one on leland. just wanted to make that clear. >> clerk: thank you, sir, for

your comments. did you have any comments you'd like to use the 1:30 for? >> i'd just say i'm opposed to the one opening at 5801 mission street. >> clerk: all right. that item has not been called -- >> i don't know if i should be saying that because it's not been called. >> clerk: okay. press star, three to go back into listening, and we'll call that oofr this one. >> yeah. okay. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller, please? >> hi. is it my turn? >> clerk: yes, it is. >> okay. hi, my name is chris, and i live nearby, and i'm calling on behalf of over 200 immediate

impact neighbors, and we have a lot of asian families in this neighborhood. a lot of us have been calling last time that we oppose the project to be at this location. we are not opposed to the idea of opening a cannabis store, but we already have one right around the corner. why do we need the second one within the walking distance? this this person is not honest to the city, and we would not expect him to be a good citizen to this neighborhood. so what we need in this neighborhood is, like, very family oriented, really family activities. we need the learning center, we need library, we need supermarket. we don't need another cannabis store around the corner.

please, please respect the immediate neighbors. we don't need another shop at this location. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? we're taking testimony in opposition of the appeal and in support of the opposition to the project. >> operator: madam clerk, that completes the queue. >> clerk: thank you to operations and thank you to the public for their patience on these matters. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk, and i just want to, again, say thank you to the public and with your patience for this on-line calling system as we continue to work remotely. with that said, public comment for opposition to the appeal is now closed. did you wish to speak now, supervisor preston, and

supervisor melgar, before we hear the rebuttal? okay. okay. lastly, i will invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you will have up to three minutes. >> thank you, president and supervisors. can you hear me? >> president walton: yes, we can. >> hi, this is [inaudible] again and just to clarify, to say that previous project sponsors will make zero profit if this project is not approved. there is no shadow corporation. this project will be 100% equity owned by the community, and we have tooken over from previous project sponsors. the argument that it will be on the same block as the other dispensary, this store would be on leland, and the other store would be on bayshore, so we're

not on the same block. to clarify, there's only one cannabis retailer within a mile. we're not trying to hide anything. that would be ridiculous on our part. you know, another thing is why can two cafes or two dry cleaners be in the neighborhood, but not two cannabis stores? lastly, in this process, we went door to door, we hit the ground old school because we are from the community. we hit the ground and invited opposition to meet with us to discuss, and as trained

mediators in the community. they have attacked us, slandered our names, and left us almost 30 hate messages, and they said they didn't want our faces in their community, or our business. but through that, we have conducted ourselves with [inaudible] love. right now, i hope and pray that you guys will, you know, approve and say yes and do the right thing by, you know, all the people in the community. thank you. >> president walton: thank you to the rebuttal, and i just want to say thank you to the appellant and to the opposition for calling in and for presenting today.

this public hearing has been held and is now filed. as previously discussed, we will now consider whether to approve or disapprove the appeal of the disapproval of a conditional use authorization at 5 leland avenue and 2400 bayshore boulevard. i do have a few things to say before calling on my colleagues. first of all, i do want to say that this hearing was very important. it actually allowed all of us to hear all sides of the appellant and the opposition, which i consider to be democracy at its best. i have stayed far from them because i'm well aware of the controversy and concerns and wanted to make sure not to have any biases prior to this peal and also to make sure that this was an equity and fair process. today's appeal demonstrated so

much support against and for this appeal, and it makes our decision very difficult. this appeal is not about whether or not marijuana is good or bad, this appeal is not about whether or not it is legal, as over 70% of the voters of san francisco voted to legalize recreational marijuana. we're not here to talk about the historic penalization and criminalization of marijuana for communities of color for so long. we're not here to talk about the fact that people getting rich operating cannabis businesses are and already were mostly rich, leaving low-income communities and people of color behind. but this is about what the law states, and what about -- about what we have on the books to determine to regulate cannabis and all of its sales and uses

here in san francisco. i know that there was a period of time where i felt that the legalization of marijuana may end up leading to a is theration of cannabis dispensaries all throughout district 10's low-income communities much like liquor stores, and this was very problematic for me. after researching and visiting and learning more about these businesses, i found that they are among the most regulated and responsible businesses we have in san francisco. they have security guards present at all hours to be our eyes and ears of the business. they are required to close at certain hours, and although it's not why we're here today, it does provide context of why the voters are highly in favor of the legalization of marijuana and the city's policy to make sure we provide an opportunity for people who have been criminalized due to

marijuana and people who would never have a chance to own a business. some people will say you can't take into account the fact that this would be a dispensary owned by a pacific islander, one of the most underrepresented communities here in san francisco, and that they deserve an opportunity like everyone else to have a thriving legitimate business, and that would be correct. in fact, if we look at the data of people who own dispensaries, it's a travesty to see our samoan brothers and sisters extremely underrepresented. obviously, i'm extremely concerned about the level of community opposition to the site, and my goal is always to listen to community and understand their concerns. i must say that opposition to this dispensary has been extremely high in visitacion

valley and little hollywood and its location. i took this job knowing that i work for all of the people in visitacion valley, little hollywood, bayview-hunters point, dogpatch, and across the city. so it hits me in the gut each time community speaks. i believe community should have the things they want in their neighborhoods. the worst thing someone in my position could do is to go against the wishes of a community unless i 100% know that it's the right thing to do. we are also not here to make a decision based solely on that, as again, there are policies and law that's korch cannabis dispensaries and cannabis uses. when we talk about community benefits anden quit, there's no social equity around marijuana if we continue to deny access and ownership to black people,

samoans, pacific islanders, our asian brothers and sisters, and most importantly, the people criminalized and had their own lives thrown away due to marijuana convictions during the war on drugs. but again, this is not why we're here today. we're not here to talk about the historic criminalization and penalty for communities of color for so long. here is what we are here for: to hear from the appellant, the planning department, and the opposition to this project. as the board of supervisors, it is our duty to review this project with a fresh set of eyes, and it is our duty to review all the materials that have been presented impartially and diligently. this appeal is hard to determine, but the information has been presented. all dispensaries need to apply for a conditional use

authorization through planning in addition to any permits through the office of cannabis. planning code section 303 establishes criteria for the planning commission to consider when reviewing applications for conditional use authorization. on balance, the project complies with said criteria in that the project as a retail outlet is typically required to be at least 600 feet from other outlets providing the same product, in this case, cannabis. however, this project was exempted from this requirement under the planning code section 190-b and does not have to adhere to the 600-foot rule. additionally, planning code section 303-w outlines additional findings for when we do propose a new cannabis retail establishment to

consider the following: the geographic distribution of cannabis use throughout the city [inaudible] visitacion valley will never be a place where we'll allow for the saturation of cannabis dispensaries. there's no room for it, and i would not allow it as your supervisor. i do know for a fact that people are eyeing space by the library on leland. i have had several conversations with the community that this is something that would be received very bad. by the way, per the 600-foot buffer, it would allow the next dispensary to be close to the library and smack dab in the

middle of your homes in visitacion valley, and i know this is not what the community wants. leland avenue has the highest ratio of vacant storefronts compared to other commercial corridors in san francisco. there are currently about 14 kay vant storefronts on leland avenue from bayshore -- vacant storefronts on leland avenue from bayshore to grant. this project will fill two vacancies that have been vacant for several years. i know we want more community resources and opportunities for young people in vis valley and along the corner, and some of that is being provided right now by community learning hubs, by the boys and girls club, community gardens, and we are working on several more opportunities. san francisco has established

the cannabis equity program to lower barriers to cannabis licensing for those hit hardest by the war on drugs. we can't have land use policies that discourage equity applicants while not addressing the impacts of overcriminalization of people. and to planning's concerns, and i want to say this to mr. marine because he is definitely one of my most endeared constituents, but i do not share the same view in terms of their being different information being presented. this project focuses on community safety in the area. this project focuses on workforce development and providing jobs and opportunity, for people of color and people in the community. this project focuses on social equity and eliminates vacancy

on the corridor, and this project is being presented and led and owned by someone indigenous to community and indigenous consult rur to this community. and i do just want to repeat that we would never allow for saturation of cannabis dispensary in visitacion valley. due to oversaturation of cannabis retail in other parts of san francisco, we may very well see a cannabis retail store approved by our library in visitacion valley, and i repeat, i will not allow saturation of cannabis in visitacion valley, and i would also not want a dispensary next to the library and in the middle of your residential

neighborhood. know that that will be more devastating to our families and to our community. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton, and thank you for your remarks. and i want to take this opportunity to acknowledge, you know, and just hearing the chinese american community and their remarks and concerns and i'm thankful for participating in this process. i also want to acknowledge that we need to continue to dedicate our resources to really more research and education and outreach, especially for communities of color and in this case the aapi community around the use of cannabis. if i may, though, and i'm really also glad to hear, president walton, your commitment, you know, for the community about, you know, not

allowing the saturation and protecting the community and making sure that, especially in the case, that there could be a less ideal location by the library. if you'd allow, i'd like to state this opinion in chinese as well as what you said. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. [speaking cantonese language]

>> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor chan. supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, president walton. and, you know, i don't think i can say it better than you did. i really appreciate remarks and your thoughtfulness. you know, we as a city in all different communities, especially the communities that have seen sighting of first

marijuana and then medical marijuana have been issues of regulation and also how to actually implement and make meaningful our equity program. and i actually think we're doing pretty well. at press walton remarked, this is one of the most regulated industries we have. compared to alcohol, tobacco, sugar, we've created an entire infrastructure of regulation and taxation. we're still waiting for the after school moneys to come from the taxes, but they're coming, supervisor ronen. i know that communities are struggling to make sure that it meets their needs, and also they can feel like there's

ownership, too. the staff recommended approval to the commission. the commission was split 4-2 in denying it. think with the 190, that is the exception. we have a long way to go for equity cannabis goals in our city. we struggle to have equality. if we're going to repair 100 years of criminalization of drug use, we need to really walk the talk of what we do, and approving a code compliant project is the bare minimum

that we can do to help folks build this business, so i would like to make a motion that we disapprove item 57 and that we approve item 58 and 59, so we approve -- so we conditionally disapprove the decision of the planning commission and approve the conditional use authorization for 5 leland, and that we prepare findings related to the conditional use authorization. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. do we have a second? supervisor preston. seconded by supervisor preston. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, president walton, and i just want to also echo the comments of my colleagues and appreciating your very thoughtful perspectives, like a lot of the conditional use

appeals are. i think it represents different perspectives among different parts of the community, and i really appreciate the strong equity applications of the applicants and the extensive community and those impacted by the war on drugs. but i guess for me, in listening to the testimony and reviewing all the information about this particular project and the appeal, i do agree with the planning commission's key finding that the proposed use is not consistent, so i just

want to summarize where i landed on this, but thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, supervisor walton. i just wanted to start off by thanking you for your thoughtful remarks. there's nothing worse as a supervisor than having to make a decision that your constituents disagree strongly on, especially when you care so much about those constituents and the area. i know how much you care and how much thought you put into it. i just want to speak to the constituents who are opposing the store, just to share my experience, because i think

second to or on par with supervisor haney, there are the most cannabis stores in my district, and what i have found, you know, and i will say right around the block from my house, right near my house, there's four cannabis stores within a very short distance from one another. and i didn't know that that was going to happen, but it turns out those stores have been some of the best in the neighborhood. first of all, having a security guard out front of every one of those stores has made the neighborhood feel safer. the fact that they have taken up what were previously four vacant storefronts has enlivened the blocks and brought business to the food

merchants in the area. they are all active in the merchants association and the neighborhood, sweep the streets, clean the trash, get involved in community events. i think having lived through the war on drugs, having grownup with the dare program, i remember it being drilled in my head in elementary school that any drugs were bad, and you wouldn't assume that these businesses would be some of the most responsible and rbful businesses on the -- respectful businesses on the block, and so i just wanted to offer that, for whatever it's worth. my experience, and i have dozens and dozens of cannabis

stores in my neighborhood, and it's wonderful in terms of how they treat the neighborhood and their neighbors in the district, and with that, i am going to be supporting the motion before us today. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, supervisor walton, and i just really want to associate myself with supervisor ronen's remarks and it's been similar to my experience in my district, and i also want to appreciate your really listening to all the parties, president walton, on this challenging peal, where not all of your constituents agreed. and i will be supporting this, and i also just want to make sure that our equity applicants here aren't lost in the discussion and just thank them for the challenging thing to

move through the process and also to hear, i'm sure, neighbors who are not fans of your project. i think for any business owner or entrepreneur, that's the last way that you want to start your business, but i appreciate you sticking with it. and i also don't claim to know all of the residents and constituents in your district but share at least some hope or cautious optimism, and as supervisor ronen notes, if this is able to move forward and not so, that it will end up being a net benefit for neighbors, even though those who may not have been supportive at the outset. >> president walton: thank you.

madam clerk, did you get the motion made by supervisor melgar and seconded by supervisor preston? >> clerk: yes. >> president walton: can we get a roll call? >> clerk: on the motion to approve item 58 and denying items 59 and 60 --

[roll call] >> clerk: there are ten ayes and one no with supervisor mar in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you. and with a vote of 10-1, the motion varies. i do want to state that just for the public, you know, sometimes folks feel that decisions are final at certain bodies, and i understand that a lot of time, planning does get it right, but not in this indicates. -- in this case. i want to say to the appellants, you must commit to supports, including language capacity and committing to engaging with the area. i want you to understand that you are going to have to be the best neighbors that the visitacion valley has ever seen, and as we know, dispensaries are not drugstores but legal businesses, but we want to make sure that you

highlight and operate in a manner that is why we approved c.u. today as an equity business, as a minority business in our community. so thank you, colleagues, and thank you, everyone, for participating and understanding the seriousness of this matter. madam clerk, would you please call special order 3:00 p.m. items 60 through # 63? >> clerk: items 60 through 63 comprise the approval of the conditional use approval at 249 texas street. >> president walton: colleagues, i would like to motion to continue this hearing and the associated motions to the tuesday, october 5 regular

board meeting so that the appellants and project sponsors have more time to engage in associations. seconded by supervisor ronen. madam clerk -- i'm sorry. and before we take the vote, we need to take public comment on the motion to continue the hearing for 249 texas street to tuesday, october 5. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. operations, do we have any callers in the queue who would like to provide testimony specifically to the continuance of items 60 through 63? this is the continuation of the matter at 265 texas street to tuesday, october 5. welcome, caller.

clerk. -- welcome, caller. caller, are you there? we have 19 callers in the queue. if you're one of the 19 and you'd like to provide comment on the continuance of this item, item 60 through 63, press star, three now. otherwise, operations, do we have any callers in the queue? . >> operator: madam clerk, that completes the queue. >> clerk: thank you, operations. mr. president? >> president walton: thank you. seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, on the motion i made to continue this hearing and associates motions to the october 5 meeting, seconded by supervisor ronen, will you please call the roll? >> clerk: on the motion to continue items 60 through 63 to october 5 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, the motion to continue items 60 through 63 to october 5 is approved unanimously. madam clerk, please call the last 3:00 p.m. special order, items 64 through 67. >> clerk: items 64 through 67 comspries the special --

comprise the special order hearing and motion to continue this item. >> president walton: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: mr. president, i'd like to make a motion to continue this item to sept -- sorry. september 21 or 28 meeting. >> president walton: got to pick one. >> supervisor safai: whichever one the clerk recommends. >> president walton: thank you. 21. is there a second? second made by supervisor ronen. there is a motion made by supervisor safai to continue this item to september 21 and seconded by supervisor ronen. before we call the roll on the motion, we need to get public

comment. >> clerk: operations, do we have any callers in the queue? >> operator: madam clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. mr. president? >> president walton: my apologies, madam clerk. thank you so much. can we -- oh, i'm sorry. no other speakers? public comment is now closed. madam clerk, can you please call the roll on the motion made by supervisor safai and seconded by supervisor ronen. >> clerk: on the motion to continue items 64 through 67 to september 21 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you so much, and without objection, motion carries. madam clerk, i need to actually move to rescind the vote for items 60 through 63 as the date that was made in the original motion is incorrect, and i believe there's no objection, so we can take this same house, same call. >> clerk: mr. president, who's your -- >> president walton: supervisor ronen. motion to rescind carries. madam clerk, i would like to make a motion to continue the items 60 through 63 to october 19, 2021. seconded by supervisor ronen.

>> clerk: okay. public comment, mr. president? >> president walton: and we will now hear public comment on that motion to continue 60 through 63 to october 19, 2021. >> clerk: operations, do we have any callers in the queue who would like to provide testimony on the continuance of items 60 through 63 to october 19? >> operator: madam clerk, we have no callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. thank you, operations. mr. president? >> president walton: thank you. public comment on the items are now closed. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to continue items 60 through 63 to october 19 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, and without objection, the motion to continue items 60 through 63 to the october 19 regular board meeting is approved unanimously. madam clerk, let's go back to item number 49. >> clerk: and just for the public, item 49 is a release of reserves of the board of supervisors reserves for funds of 537,000 for new trash can design. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, president walton and colleagues, for allowing us to push this item back a little bit. i have some amendments to this item, but first, there's a couple quick things that i want to say about it. the first is that there's, i think, not a lot of doubt that we need new trash cans in our

city. this is one of the most basic and essential functions that our city provides. our trash cans that are out there now are beyond our shelf life. we are using a huge amount of money to repair them and replace them on a regular basis. most of us would likely agree that there are some problems with the fundamental design of the ones out there, as well. they're very often damages, very often broken, and they're easy to rummage through. i think they've led to some problems of creating trash on our streets, which is a bit ironic for a trash can to be causing trash on the street, but in many ways, it is just obvious to our residents, as well, that we need to replace these trash cans. so that's clear, and this release of the reserve funds will take us, i hope, quickly,

in that direction. with that said, there were some issues that i brought up and a conversation that took place in the budget committee that i wanted to share a bit with you all about and then offer an amendment. there was a decision that was made a little over three years ago to design a custom trash can, so to essentially have d.p.w. go through a process with the arts commission and others to develop a trash can that would meet the needs of the unique situation in an francisco. it was a decision that was made by the former d.p.w. director. it's a decision that the current d.p.w. leadership is not even fully aware of in terms of why that decision was made because most of them or all of them were not there at the time of that decision. so we -- we, i think, are at a

place no, sir where that decision was made a few years ago. i think it was a decision that i think delayed our ability to significantly replace the trash cans that were out on the street. one of the problems is the department of public works, as you all know, is one of the few departments that does not have an oversight commission, so there were no hearings that were held in a d.p.w. commission. thankfully, we have changed that with proposition b last year, that will create oversight over the department of public works and i think will help address some of the challenges that got to this point. with that set, my interest is making sure that we get trash cans that work out on the street, do it efficiently, do it quickly, and do it in a way that meets the needs of our residents as it relates to

trash. if we approve this item, they will move forward immediately with prototyping, both custom and off-the-shelf that are available. two things that i want to say. i have had conversations with the department of public works over the last week about the cost, and i know that there was a lot of attention to the cost of the prototypes, but it is also important to know that d.p.w. has asserted that the mass production of these custom build trash -- built trash cans, they expect it would be cheaper than the commercially produced ones that are available. ultimately, by going to the custom design that it's their view that we will ultimately

save money overall. it has taken some time, and there is some element that i question whether or not san francisco should be designing our own trash cans or finding ones from the many cities that have them and practice all over the country and the world. so that is one thing that's important. the trash cans, once you make the decision to replace all of the ones that are out there, they can be competitive with the commercially available ones. they will not be $20,000 each when they go out there. with that said, i looked closely at the numbers of the prototypes themselves. i think the costs out there was too much, so i have an amendment which will reduce the cost of the prototypes by nearly half, and i've worked

with d.p.w. on this, and they are willing to accept this, and they believe that it can be done for this amount. so if there are no other questions or comments about this, i'm going to make a motion to amend item 49 reducing the total budget for the trash can pilot to 437,500 in the short title, long title, and on-lines 11 and 17. >> president walton: do i have a second? second by supervisor safai. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: i just want to thank you, supervisor haney, for working on this. i can't stand the ones that are out there and agree that ironically they often make areas more dirty, not less, and

i support the legislation that you helped facilitate. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor haney. i just want to say that i often saw you on top of this issue and answering our constituents that read that 20,000 price tag and were understandably alarmed. i just hope that we also pay attention to the picking up of the trash in those new, more attract tiff, and better designed cans -- attractive, and better designed cans. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, supervisors ronen and melgar. i do want to say that there will be 20-plus trash cans of the three that are being customed designed as well as in the budget committee, we really emphasize that these need to be

placed all over the city andest -- and tested all over the city. hopefully with your districted and d.p.w., we will make a decision, which is not going to be replacing all of the ones that are out there now -- which is going to be replacing all of the ones that are out there now, which is 3,000, and will drastically change the way our city looks. so getting past the cost of the prototypes, which we're reducing, as i said, by about half, and two, what will ultimately be the goal, which is replacing the 3,000 cans that are out there and getting something that works for all of our residents and meets the goals of a clean city. with that, we can take a motion. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney, and these

amendments are not substantive? thank you. on the motion made by supervisor haney and seconded by supervisor ronen, madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the amendments made to item 49 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. the motion carries unanimously. madam clerk, please call the roll for the amended item 49. >> clerk: on item 49 as amended -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, and without objection, the motion carries unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 69. >> clerk: i will state, mr. president, that items 68 through 71 were considered by the government audit and oversight committee on july 23. item 69, resolution authorizing

the issuance of measure rr sales tax revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed 140 million to fund the peninsula corner he project fundings, the issuance of measure rr sales tax revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed 75,000 i don't know to refund the peninsula corridor joint powers board fare box revenue bonds, and the replacement of the existing resolving credit facility for the pcep with a new credit facility in an amount not to exceed 100 million at any one time. >> president walton: thank you. and with that, we can take this

same house, same call. madam clerk, call item 70. >> clerk: this is a resolution urging the m.t.a. to reinstate all transit lines and restore precovid service hours by december 31, 2021, and release by august 31, 2021, a written plan for restoration of all lines and services. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. i want to thank supervisor chan for her leadership in addressing these issues facing our public transportation system. we went in great detail for four hours in g.a.o. -- thank you, supervisor mandelman and

supervisor chan. we also talked about some of the these issues and heard some the m.t.a. at the t.a. this morning, so i am not -- not going to go back through all the ground covered here, but what i do want to talk about for a minute is the path that we've good night on from my perspective and the path that i hope we shift to, and the concerns that grove this resolution that have driven a lot of the discussion, and i think are on the minds of a lot of san franciscans. i will start by saying that i've been riding muni almost 30 years, and it is extremely disheardening to see some of our muni lines, including the one that i've relied on for most of that period, suspended indefinitely. and i think about -- my -- my line is the 21.

i think about seniors and the folks with mobility issues who live on my block on a hill who have basically been unable to access public transportation for the last 16 months. i have asked repeatedly, not just on the 21, but on other suspended lines, over the last 16 months, whether these lines are coming back, and i, as well as so many of our constituents, have been assured over and over and over again that the suspension of muni lines was temporary in the covid crisis, and i may have made the mistake of taking those representations from m.t.a. leadership at face value and accepting them. i would feel comfortable, that even if all the lines had not come back, that we had a road

map and a plan that said they would. i would be more comfortable if we actually had a commitment on the record that each and every one of these lines would come back, even as we had a discussion in the longer term about whether there needed to be changes in our system. instead, we have approached municipally and public transportation in san francisco from an austerity perspective. and even the m.t.a. leadership, with whom we disagree on the pace of bringing back transit lines, would agree that if you restore service too slowly, you enter what the m.t.a. and everyone else in the transit industry calls the transit death spiral. there's no disagreement that if you do this too slowly, you kill your public transportation system. colleagues, i'm not prone to

hyperbole on these things, but i believe that that is the path that we could be on, and we made some decisions based on austerity approach. we froze our hiring of muni and maintenance workers. that's why this resolution doesn't call for muni to be fully restored next month because everyone agrees we need the next six-month period to continue the hiring process to get there. but make no mistake, it was the decision not to invest in a crisis where we didn't know what was ahead, but it's that which has contributed to the delay in bringing back muni lines. what concerns me the most here

is for a year, we were told suspensions were temporary, and then, what began to happen, is people started losing their patience after a year, and people started pushing to get their lines back, and then, interesting things started to happen when there were protests on a particular line. lo and behold, that line came back. i was part of those protests, supervisor haney was part of those protests, and director tumlin was part of those protests -- well, he came to the protests, and i give him credit for that. it came out that certain lines were suspended with no plans for return. there were enough protests that one of those got put on the

list. and as we've started to push back, what we've seen is a shift where m.t.a. appears to be focused and appears to have us on a path to reenvisioning muni not just for the next six months, but instead looking at the permanent elimination as an option for many of these lines that have been suspended. i asked about plans, and you will recall at t.a. meetings asked, are there plans that show the permanent elimination of lines? are there any documents that discuss that, and we were, of course, assured there were no plans for that. the public records act request done by -- by residents of san francisco and discussed in depth at our hearing show quite to the contrary. [please stand by]

-- equally bad at the hearing that we learned that the m.t.a. is not committing -- i shouldn't say -- they will not commit to bringing any line to this board so despite a charter provision that says that it must be board approved, they're leaving open the possibility that their elimination permanently of muni lines may not constitute it, and they may not seek board review. and making our statement through this resolution that much more important. i am troubled that out of 25 of the largest transit agencies in the country right now according to transit recovery which tracks

restoration of transit writership and services across the united states, we rank 24 out of 25 in terms of service, restoration and recovery. and i want to close by just posing a very basic question -- 16 months into the pandemic, why is there no plan to restore all the lines to pre-pandemic service? why no commitment to do that? even if qualified by timelines, by metrics, by things that would trigger that, why is there no plan, why is there no promise for that? what other city agency providing a crucial service to people before the pandemic -- 16 months in -- can't commit to providing what they provided before the pandemic. can you imagine this in any

other context? think of all the heat that our schools got for lack of a plan. and imagine if the school officials were saying that we can't tell you if that school is ever going to open. there's one a few blocks away and maybe your kids can go there, right? of course not. why is m.t.a. the only agency without a plan? so i think that this board needs to take -- take action, take a stand on this, and i also just want to say that i think that the public pressure -- i think that these discussions is having an impact. and i urge people to speak out. i urge this board to speak, hopefully with one voice. and also look forward to working with m.t.a. leadership, with all of the folks who represent the workers and riders and the m.t.a. board, and let's get this right. and let's be certain that we do not enter the transit death spiral by acting too slow when it comes to restoration of service. thank you. >> president walton: thank you

be, supervisor preston. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: it occurs to me, supervisor peskin will have to tell me if this is right, that different boards have different protocols on how often and how much they stand up during these conversations. it seemed like supervisor peskin comes from an era where everybody stood. and it seems like over the last -- the first couple of years that i was here it seemed that people got into the habit of sitting and now it appears that we're back to standing. so i will try out my standing muscles. and i want to start by thanking supervisor preston for the transit geek, because i think that it is one that i will wear proudly and that i think a lot of us on this board share. i think that is a good thing. i wish this could be a united statement. it wasn't in committee, and, you know, i think that i may be the only "no vote" here today. but i'm going to be a no vote. and i want to say, um, it is not

because i think that muni service is okay right now. i hear too many harrowing tales from people that i represent about what they are experiencing as they wait. and as they get passed by full buses as their bus doesn't come and as the transit prediction for $8 billion has not come to pass and no one knows when their train or bus is coming. but it is not like muni was working all that well prior to the pandemic either. and it was -- and that is not to say that it was not better. it was far better. but we requested the convening of the transit performance working group because it was awful what our constituents were experiencing -- the shutdowns in the tunnel particularly, but

breakdowns and shutdowns throughout the system were unacceptable and we convened that group and spent a year talking about, you know, the various things that were with muni and how they could be addressed. i want to talk a bit about the path that we have been done -- although, again, m.t.a. service right now is unacceptable. but there are some things that they have done quite well and that i think that they should be proud of. they made the decision -- difficult as it was for my constituents and for supervisor melgar's constituents to shut down service to many of the people who we represent, to protect the trunk lines that were getting essential workers back and forth to work even in the darkest days of the pandemic. and to try to do that safely. i think they've gotten recognized nationally for

leading with equity during that period and i'm looking forward to the august restorations and the restorations again at the end of the year. my trouble with the resolution is twofold. one, i think that it asks m.t.a. to do something they have told us that they cannot do, and i believe them. they have told us that they cannot turn on 100% of the service that they were offered, that they were giving prior to the pandemic by the end of this year. and they're saying it not because of the discussion around austerity or budgetary decisions but because they do not have the workforce to get beyond 85%. and they do not anticipate having that until some time next year. so i think that by putting that in, we're setting them up for failure in a way that is wrong, and creates false expectations. secondly, the resolution seems

to be saying that our first priority and m.t.a.'s first priority should be reestablishing the system that we had and then we can think about how to change and tinker with it. i'm not convinced that's right. particularly if it is going to be many more months before we are able to have the full level of service that we had prior to the pandemic. i think as they turn service on, it may make sense to -- to put more service in areas where we didn't have it, and less in areas where we did. and i think that the program that they've put forward of presenting a plan that is full restoration of what we had, and then presenting some other options -- if that is something that can happen in the next couple or few months is a good way to have this conversation. it will allow the community to weigh in and it will allow the politics and we will hear from our constituents. we will press. and i think that, you know, that's the way that this should work.

i think that this resolution sets m.t.a. up for failure, insinuates that they are either incompetent or pursuing goals at odds with the best interest of san franciscans and i don't think that i can support it as it is. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mandelman. i think that you looked pretty good standing up. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. president. i've said this before in this chamber and i'm going to say it again -- i think that supervisor peskin is at fault for all of this trouble that we're having. and part of that has to do with the charter amendments that he's made over the last 20 years. you want more authority, supervisor preston, ask the guy that took it away from this body. but he did it with purpose because the meeting that we had today, the appeal hearing that we had today, was just one piece

of what would have been larger conversations on a consistent basis. so i think that there was some thoughtfulness put into that. we created an sfmta commission, we created an independent body that is a void of politics in the decision-making. and they tried to be objective with the information that's presented to them. that being said, i think that your resolution is worthy of some conversation. the only thing that i'd ask -- and i think that i have said this to you -- and i called the director after the hearing this morning and i wanted to hear him what the response was. there's no way that he can get a plan to this body or publicly by august 31st. he has asked for the end of september as he has to bring it to his sfmta commission and go through that process and then they believe that they can get it to us. so i ask for a friendly amendment to make it, and page

22, and line 4, and on page 4 on the last page -- excuse me, on line 4 on page 5, we change it to september 30th. i think that that would give them the opportunity to look at the data. their staff is spending -- as was heard in the hearing this morning -- and as we know, spending all of their time and energy and effort into restoring service and that's where they're putting their energy. as a district that has one of the highest -- the highest concentration of working families and children under the age of 18 and seniors aging in place, muni restoration is phenomally important to our district so i'm 100% in agreement with you there. thank you for the m line and we have fought for the restoration of the 52. and i know that supervisor haney was a loud voice for 31 and goes also in supervisor chan's district and a lot of us have

pushed for rest raigdz, but as you said it's been piecemeal. so there's no reason to not ask for a restoration plan. and giving them more time to produce that plan is fair. but i also agree with what t.a. chair commission chair mandelman said. i think that it would be irresponsible, specifically to just say let's restore under every single circumstance by the end of the year without the data. and i think that the plan is going to say to us -- the restoration plan -- is going to say to us what that is. i think we heard them say without fair collection increasing and without parking revenue increasing, we are an independently funded transportation system, very similar to new york city. we don't have that additional level of funding when it comes to operations that some of these other transit systems do, we're more reliant on our local

revenue. it doesn't mean that we don't get outside revenue, but we're more reliant in that way, so all i would say is that the plan that is presented is 85% restoration. i'm not 100% happy with that either, but i also believe that we want to do this in the right way in terms of restoring service and protecting the system so that it doesn't bankrupt it. but, again, i'm with you, i would like to see a plan and i would like to see it written and i would like to see us review that, but i am saying thank you supervisor peskin for creating that additional level of review at the sfmta and their commission and at some point they have to sign off and then we can have a final say. thank you, mr. chair. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, mr. president. i'm going to sit because it's 7:14. so i'm a transit geek too. and i also have been riding muni for a long time.

you know, when i came to san francisco from el salvador when i was 12, i would ride the 14 to school in supervisor safai's district now, on the corner of mission and whittier. and back then it cost a nickel for a kid to take the muni. but, you know, as a fresh off the boat girl from el salvador, muni gave me freedom and an opportunity to discover this wonderful city and to go anywhere that i wanted. and coming from a civil war, this was to me like unprecedented, you know, and for so many youth and people muni is freedom. it is the opportunity to go to a job and, you know, to go to city college. to get an education, participate in culture, do all kinds of things. i deeply, deeply love and believe in this system. and it is an equalizer where

people from all walks of life, all ethnicities and neighborhoods can get on and get around, and we need to keep it and preserve it. so i well be voting in favor of this resolution. i do want full restoration. i think that it is really important to our economic recovery. that being said, since i follow you on twitter, supervisor preston, there's a couple things that i -- you know, i expressly want to say. i don't believe that there's a nefarious plan by muni. i don't think that it's paving a way for a corporate takeover of uber and lyft. i think that we are having a difference -- a philosophical difference -- in terms of how to recover. whether we take an austerity-based approach, which i think that risks going into a transit death spiral. i do think that. or whether we invest in the system and, you know, elevate

the value of the system emotionally in the minds of voters so that we can correct the structural deficit that muni had before the pandemic, which we must correct in the long run i think that, you know, because we have a little chunk of change from president biden, it gives us a little bit of time to make those decisions. and i hope that we make the right decisions. but i do think that full service restoration is what we need, both in terms of valuing the system by the voters and also for economic recovery. and, you know, i will also say that, you know, we are inventing a lot of this because of the pandemic. i am supremely grateful to the m.t.a. staff that has, you know, done a fantastic job with grace and patience, like lots of our city workers have through this

pandemic. and particularly to the muni drivers who have been working and exposing themselves and their families during the pandemic to make sure that we all get around. so, thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president walton. and i'm sitting too because i do not have my right glasses and i can't see anything. and i also want to say i'm not a transit geek, i have never been called that, but i have been called a band geek before and i wore that proud lie. ly. but i do want to say that i've had significant concerns, of course, also related to transit restoration. in my district we have nine lines that continue to be on pause or they're significantly reduced. and the 43 is causing a lot of heart burn in district 2. and, you know, i was part of saving the rejects a while back with a whole bunch of constituents and i know that remains a concern. the an enormous burden on our residents, particularly in my

district, seniors and those with families. i have also been dissatisfied and frustrated with the information, you know, that we're -- or the lack of information that we're getting -- and this morning we did hear from the director, and i thought that he had a chance to explain himself. obviously, i was not in the hearing on friday. but i think what he said and what supervisor mandelman said is that we might want like what he says but, i in fact, i actually believe him. and i do agree with supervisor mandelman that the trouble with the resolution and what's bothering me is that it asks them to do something that they cannot do. and i don't believe in voting for something when i know that -- and i believe that they cannot do it, based on a labor shortage and based on the reasons that have been given, based on finances. and, again, i believe them on that. and also reestablishing the system that we had before -- maybe it isn't the best idea. and why isn't it worth

examining? the world has changed since covid, since the pandemic, and providing for what we provided for pre-pandemic might not make sense. and i think that it's okay to look at that. and i think that they should. and director tumlin said this morning, yeah, we're looking at restoring everything, but we're also going to look at what the heck is going on now. and i hope that they would. and, also, you know, the school district was brought up. you know, the schools -- not pre-pandemic -- but the schools have lost 1,700 students, our city's public schools and there might be more coming and that results in a $20 million loss in funding. schools might have to look at something and do something very drastic. you know what the schools didn't do? they didn't hire consultants. the school board said no to a consultant. we're not going to hire a consultant. we're not going to look at what is really happening here and how to get people back in school and, guess what -- the schools barely opened and they lost

1,700 students. so looking at and examining the problem and trying to understand what best fits san francisco now to me is not a bad thing. i would hope they would do that and, again, i believe director tumlin and to engage and to piggyback on what supervisor melgar said this whole nefarious idea that someone is doing something very bad i think is very dangerous. when we play into that, that somehow muni is doing something -- you know, we don't always like what they're saying to us, but, again, like i said, i believe what they're saying. they're strapped. they don't have the workers. they are dealing with the pandemic and everything that has come after it. but engaging in this nefarious idea that they are doing something that is less than honest, i think, is a very dangerous way to -- you know, to have people not believe in their government. and, yes, we don't always do

things perfectly, every department doesn't do things perfectly, but when we sit here and cast dispersions on the work that they are trying to do -- i don't like it. you know, sometimes it's necessary, but here i don't think that it is. and i -- you know, i just am not comfortable with voting yes on a resolution that would demand action that is not realistic. we have been told that -- director tumlin told that -- again, i don't really like it, but i expect him to look at san francisco today are the pandemic, we're still in the pandemic, by the way, and examine what is best to serve our constituents, our residents now. and that might not be exactly what pre-pandemic transit service looked like. we've got to give them a chance and he's telling us that he can't do it by this date. i would agree with supervisor safai's amendment, but i still think that i have trouble with

the resolution as a whole, asking somebody to do something they simply can't do because of proven labor shortages and cash flow and everything else i think is problematic for me. so with that, i will not be voting in support of this resolution today. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton, i will stand because i have to -- it's been so long. i would like to put this in context a little bit for all of us colleagues. i think that we have been in this pandemic for 16 months now in march, we had -- we at c.t.a., at the county transportation authority, we did actually ask sfmta to come forward and to present to us what is their plan as we approach reopening -- the reopening of the economy.

and so it's been a while. like, i just wanted to kind of put it in context the fact that it's been in the works. we've been asking them, and we are expecting a $1.5 billion municipal transportation agency actually to have a plan by now, but -- but it doesn't seem like they do. i disagree through president walton -- i disagree with supervisor safai's thought that, you know, supervisor peskin is to be blamed for the situation of sfmta. i actually do think that the problem with sfmta is really the structural deficits that they've been tackling with, even before the pandemic. it's simply the way that this agency is being funded. i think that traditionally, you know, we are saying that you should be a revenue generating agency. and, it's true, at one point i

thought so too, but, really, if we think that public transit is public good, like supervisor melgar has mentioned about how great the public transit is for -- especially for immigrant and low-income communities, then let's fund it like it is, that it is public goods. so i think that structural deficit is really the challenge that you face. so there's no doubt that i can see, you know, director tumlin's point about, you know, the worry around budget. however, i think that the approach though is not one for san francisco. and the approach to say how do we deal with this structural deficit at the expense of our services and it is not the right approach. i think that the approach should be to say how do we continue with the services that we had pre-pandemic level, and how do

we expend it and how do we make it better by identifying the funding sources. let's not fall into that trap of false choice -- of choosing between services and operation budgets. i think that we need to look at the funding sources for the long term to really help this agency so i think that this is the reason why i am a co-sponsor of this resolution. i think that there is -- it is our job as, you know, as representatives of our constituents to hold city agency like the sfmta accountable, asking and to demand a plan, and in this case i am in board for september 30, 2021. it will be the time when we return from recess, but also, you know, school is going to come back. i really have good faith in that, that we're going to go back to in-person learning so

much. and that, you know, i had -- you know, i had a good faith in our department of public health that they're going to continue to lead us, you know, tackling the delta variant to make sure that our local economy will continue to sustain and to continue to open. so with all of that, i urge you for your support on this resolution, colleagues, i think that it is what we need to make sure that the public transit serves those who need it the most. and in this case right now, it is our seniors, it is our essential workers, it is our working families, and very soon working families with school-aged children. so, thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. see, i was starting to sit because none of you would stand

up and now you're all standing upo i'll stand up and regale you with a bit of history that starts long before my time. muni used to be a property of the san francisco p.u.c. and it was later spun off long before i was on the board of supervisors as its own entity. in 1999 there was an agreement between then supervisor gavin newsome and then another supervisor that gave the m.t.a. a lot of autonomy from the elected board of supervisors. and ostensibly the chief executive -- the mayor. and while it is true that the elected board of supervisors has been largely -- since 1999 -- divorced from the day-to-day governance of the m.t.a. and that is less true over newsome

and all the way through. i think they see themselves as an executive agency. but the fundamental proposition e of 1999 was actually aimed at making them transcend it from politics, from the legislative and the executive branches. and to dip into a stable source of baseline funding from the general fund that was not subject to the budget crisis de jure. indeed they are the largest recipient of baseline set asides in the city and county of san francisco. it is true -- and i know that supervisor safai was saying it partially in jest that in 2007 i was indeed the author of proposition a which took another sub-set of things that used to be on the land, use and transportation committee calendar. every red curb, every yellow curb, every blue curb throughout this city -- everything that had to do with taxis. but we retained in prop a and in

prop b some level of high oversight authority. everything under 911.8 like the taxi meters, 911.18 of the charter still comes to this body. we made a policy decision earlier about $70 million as it relates to what supervisor preston and all of us are thinking about earlier today. (please stand by)

i think we were both proponents of proposition l, that was then supervisor norman yee's attempt to actually add checks and balances that i supported and to

change the composition of the m.t.a. commission and to change the number of supervisors that it would take to reject an m.t.a. budget. that charter amendment, with a couple of million dollars in opposition, failed. but we can go back to the ballot in june of 2022. and fundamentally, and i think director tumlin understands this on some level. you can't cut the board of supervisors out. m.t.a. commissioners do not get their door knocked on or their e-mails blown up for restoration of the two or the 28 or the 31 or the 39. i mean, i can't leave my house when, you know, and walk five blocks without hearing about the 39, which ace teeny tiny feeder line, but every old person on the hill needs that to bring their groceries home. that's just how it is.

so i think the urgency of this board -- i agree, we're not out of the pandemic, but we're getting there, and saying, hey, m.t.a., this is a shared priority. and m.t.a., you heard it this morning, we agree, 100% restoration. where it gets fuzzy, is what does 100% restoration mean? and clearly when they're sun shining that agency, they're learning more than we're hearing. that does not mean there is a nefarious thing going on. this is a quickly changing situation. you have schools to deal with, operator shortages, you've got people who don'twa want to come to work. we are coming out and local 258 is ready to rock-n-roll. i'm delighted, even though we don't have passengers on them yet, the cable cars, you can see

them tested. so we're getting there, but i think putting a little bit of heat in that direction and expressing this board's policy sentiment makes perfect sense and not micromanaging the living day lights out of them is exactly what i intended in prop a and newsome intended in prop e of 1999. and i think there have been real improvements as a result of taking the day-to-day micro management by both the executive and the legislative out of those day-to-day decisions. so i will be supporting the resolution, but would suggest that the august 31st date be kicked back a little bit. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. i'm going to go to supervisor ronen first. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. and i have to say although sometimes the length is

frustrating, i have been appreciating the interesting discussions we've been having at the board of supervisors about so many issues that we're facing. i am going to support this resolution. and i absolutely believe that reinstating all transit lines should be a priority of this city. to me, that is a no-brainer. and i will start by saying that, you know, perhaps it's because i don't have any many rail lines in my district, but i actually thought muni was pretty great pre-pandemic. and, of course, there were issues, of course, there were problems, but i, you know, i've moved around in the city in the past decade, you know, a dozen times. and i've always been able to use muni and get to work and back in a reasonable amount of time. and so has my husband and my family. and it's not world-class transportation system like

barcelona where i lived. that we can compare to barcelona of the shared spaces program. it -- you know, there are gaps. the speed with which the lines run could be faster. you know, in different neighborhoods, but it was pretty good pre-pandemic. all of us that believe in science and climate change is the number one issue facing us in -- on our planet and is a greater and greater threat every day. we're not going to meet our emissions goal without a fully functioning public transit system that people feel confident in and are able to use

no matter where they live in the city. and if we don't at least show them in a real plan that's what's coming, that's what we should be expecting that's what we all believe should happen, that's a major problem. of course, we're asking m.t.a. to come to us and tell us, what would be your plan to reinstate all the lines? now if our director says, this would be the plan, however, i think it would be a mistake to reinstate this line because the world has changed in this way, this way, this way. or reinstating this line would cause this trade-off which we might not want to do. sure. that's what we want. we want to see that full plan. we want to understand the think offing the m.t.a. leadership. but we want to understand that thinking with the expectation that restoring all the lines to

pre-pandemic is eventually our goal. and i believe that is absolutely the goal that we should clearly be expressing to m.t.a. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i appreciate the work you put into it, supervisor preston. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. let me start, first of all, i think the amendment that safai proposed is a friendly amendment and i think if that's a more reasonable time frame for m.t.a. to get us that plan, certainly, receptive to that. i know my co-sponsor has indicated the same. so happy to vote for that amendment. i just want to respond to a few of the things that have come up.

first of all, the idea that the resolution urges m.t.a. to do something they can't do. i think we need to clear the air on that. they absolutely can restore 100% of the lines, 100% of the service hours. and we have from the start said if there is a more reasonable time line give it to us. the barriers have been the work -- the hiring issue and supervisor peskin said with that hiring being concluded this winter, so that we're at the point to do 100% restoration. and the money. there is no cash flow issue here. it's questions around whether it's the right investment to make given the long-term fiscal issues for m.t.a. but there is no barrier. the m.t.a. could decide to

restore all the lines consistent with the resolution on january 1, 2022. it's a question of whether they will do that. and i think it's appropriate for us to urge them to do so. i want to clarify this idea, this resolution does not say and i don't think anyone is saying, everything has to look identical regardless of patterns. its overall service hours to be restored and lines. of course, if the travel going downtown is lower and the travel between certain neighborhoods is higher and they're going to adjust and pivot and run more buses on the busy line, nothing in this resolution precludes that. we're in no way trying to micro manage those details of the m.t.a. finally, i want to address the issue a few of you colleagues have sort of agreed in principle with some parts of the resolution, but have concerns around what i think may be

perceived as accusations or allegations around, you know, nefarious or secret plans or things like that. and i just want to address that head on. this is not -- i'm not accusing the m.t.a. of a big conspiracy theory here. i think they're telling us, colleagues, over and over again, what they're doing. they're just only talking about one part of it. so we get connect s.f. we get 50-page power point presentations. we get the five-minute network that we're all building toward. jeff tumlin has been clear since the day he took his position, his vision of investing in these core lines, right? and that is not a secret. jarrett walker published their consultant on this blog, this, you know, preference, instead of like the two complements that is near the other line to invest in, to actually invest in these other core lines.

this is not a secret. the part that they are not saying and where we have to read between the lines and where it's our responsibility to elevate this part, because this is what our constituents are experiencing. is if you keep the money the same, and you double-down only on the core lines, you're getting rid of the coverage. you're getting rid of the neighborhood line. it's the only way it adds up. and that's the part frankly that we've been elevating. and that's the part that we can't get a direct answer to. that they won't say. but it's not some secret plan. that is the trajectory. and it's a healthy discussion to have. there is a debate in the transit world between ridership and coverage. you get more ridership when you invest in core lines, you get more coverage when you go out to neighborhoods and cover. and the happy medium between. that is a conversation we as a

city need to have. it's a conversation those in the working group have had. what i'm saying is, don't have that conversation in the middle of a pandemic when people don't have their lines just because it's easier to have that conversation now. just because when we did this a decade ago with the transit effectiveness project. when we had attempts to have the difficult discussions, the community rises up against it and we know the community will not rise up the same way in the middle of a global pandemic. let's not use this opportunity to have that important discussion. let's get the lines back as soon as possible and then really engage the community before making permanent changes to longstanding routes. thank you. >> supervisor safai: i'd like to make a motion to make the

amendments on the dates on page 24 and on line 4 on page 5. change the date from august 31, 2021 to september 30, 2021. >> president walton: do i have a second. >> second. >> thank you. motion to amend. seconded by supervisor preston. >> supervisor mandelman: i guess i'm back up. and i just want to -- i think we're working our way toward the end of this conversation. but i do think there is broad agreement, i think supervisor stefani agrees with this. and the way to get there, it's going to look like the service prior to the pandemic and there

may be an argument how close it gets. but the way to get to that improvements to service is -- and this was discussed in the muni working group and it was discussed by two task forces before that, which i believe at least one of them, supervisor peskin was intimately involved with, that institution, the m.t.a., does need more dollars. and we have opportunities next year, all of us -- and i think there is no disagreement here -- to try and get more money to the m.t.a. which notwithstanding all these task forces and conversations and general recognition that the m.t.a. needs more money, it hasn't happened in all these years. there was a bond. and i guess -- and former supervisor wiener made a run on the ballot, but the scale of the funding need, although it has been known for going on a decade has never been actually tackled and i hope that is a task that

this board takes on over the next year. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor mandelman. before we vote on the amendments, i do just want to make a brief statement. one, i 100% believe if we focus on recruitment and training and getting muni lines back operational, we could bring back the workforce we need. director kirchbaum did speak on her timeline and what she felt was the appropriate time line for being able to get more operators, so i 100% agree that they can meet the deadline in this resolution. we've been spending time fighting over street closures and parking meter funding. we haven't prioritized the workforce or operating muni lines quite frankly. and m.t.a. hasn't prioritized them. and hasn't prioritized getting back to pre-pandemic service. just like everyone ganged up on

the school district. i don't understand why we're allowing m.t.a. to get away with not being able to get our lines back up and running. i mean, people massacred the school district. and i don't understand why m.t.a. gets the privilege of not being pushed to actually do their job. and that is to make sure that we get lines up and running. the t. in m.t.a. stands for transit. so we need to get rolling. it's that simple. the quickest way to not achieve is to say what you can't do. and so once people start spouting out what they can't do, then you're definitely not going to achieve a goal. and a can-do attitude is what we should be demanding as the board of supervisors and this is something that like supervisor peskin pointed out, it's a resolution, not an ordinance.

i wish this was something more powerful to get them to move. you know, unless there is something that is extremely different circumstance because of the delta variant, there is no way that m.t.a. can't meet this goal from this resolution. particularly, according to their own staff's time line in terms of how they would be able to get operators. so i just want to say i definitely support the resolution. and wanted to make sure i put that on record. and i believe we have an amendment made by supervisor safai, seconded by supervisor preston, that we need to vote on. madame clerk? >> on the amendment to item 70, supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye.

>> supervisor stefani: aye. >> president walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. motion to amend passes unanimously. madame clerk, on the amended item number 70. >> item 07 as amended, supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: no. >> president walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: no. >> there are nine ayes and two nos, with supervisors stefani and mandelman in the dissent.

>> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. by a vote, 9-2, this resolution is adopted. madame clerk, please call item 71. item 71 was recommended as a committee report. it's a motion to direct the budget and legislative analyst to conduct audits for fiscal year 2021-22 of the economic workforce development economic programs, including community grant programs, small business programs in coordination with the office of small housing with the office of small business and affordable housing funds administered by the mayor's office of housing and community development, including sources and allowable uses of funds dedicated and actually use of funds over the prior 10-year period and available fund balances and planning decision-making and reporting on fund allocations and balances. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. what you call the role. >> on item 71, supervisor mar?

>> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> president walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, without objection, this motion is approved unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 72. >> item 72 through 74 were considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting monday july 26, item 72, was recommended as a committee report. it is an ordinance to designate the canary island pine tree located at 2251 filmer street as

a landmark tree. to make findings supporting the designation as defined therein. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no one on the roster, may we take this same house, same call? without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 73. >> item 73 was recommended as amended bearing a new title. item 73 reads resolution initiating a landmark designation under article 10 of the planning code for lincoln park, formerly known as city cemetery, assessor parcel block number 1313, lot 029. here's the new park and extending the prescribed time within which the historic preservation commission may render its decision by 90 days for a total of 180 days. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor chan?

>> supervisor chan: i'm going to be brief on this legislation landmarking lincoln park. i just want to express my honor and my privilege as an elected leader and a chinese immigrant to be able to introduce this piece of legislation honoring generation of chinese immigrants and immigrants from all over the world before my own arrival as a first generation immigrant in san francisco. so it is my hope that this landmark designation will help us remember the blood and tears of our ancestors shed as part of the power that has built san francisco into the great city it is today. again, i would like to take this opportunity to thank all the community members and organizations who have sent in letters of support for this landmarking, including chinese

consolidated benevolent association, a.p.i. historic preservation and i missed a couple of ones, including angel island foundation and community development center. i want to thank my cosponsors, supervisor peskin, mar and preston and land use chair supervisor melgar. thank you for the co-sponsorship. i do want to again give a special shoutout to the descendants of atie. mr. e., with his first name atie, was the man, a businessman, a chinese businessman who donated part of the land that is now known as lincoln park. he got that piece of land because he knew the chinese immigrant pioneers were buried underneath in that ground and he

wanted to honor them and that's why he got that piece of land. in return, you know, he donated that land to the city and county of san francisco so that becomes a municipal park that it is today. and i think that it is truly a privilege of mine to be able to do this and landmark this lincoln park, but also formerly as a city cemetery and to remember not just the chinese immigrants, but all immigrants. thank you, colleagues. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you for your work on this and if you could add me as a co-sponsor? >> thank you, supervisor ronen. i believe we can take this same house, same call? and without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item number 74. >> item 74 was recommended as amended bearing a new title. now reads resolution initiating

a landmark designation under article 10 of the planning code for 2261 fillmore street known as the clay theater. assessor parcel block number 630, lot number 002 and extending the prescribed time which the historic preservation may render its decision by 180 days. >> supervisor stefani: the item before you today is a resolution to initiate a landmark designation for the clay theater located at 2261 fillmore street. the clay theater is one of the oldest movie theaters in san francisco and has significant historic and architectural value. father over 100 years, it had been one of the most accessible and beloved cultural institutions in the neighborhood. and sadly, like so many other of the single-screen theaters, the clay theater closed in 2020

before the pandemic hit. now over two years i've heard from members of the community about how much the clay theater has meant to them and what a loss it is for the neighborhood and the entire community. not just district 2. through the landmarking process, i hope we'll be able to preserve the value of the clay theater. i want to thank supervisors for their co-sponsorship in committee and thank you, colleagues, for your consideration and support. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor. seeing no one else on the roster -- what are you pointing at? >> supervisor safai: i had my name on it. i would like that removed. you just removed me. >> president walton: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: can you please add me as a co-sponsor to this? thank you, supervisor stefani. saw some really wonderful films at that theater and it plays an important role in san francisco's history.

so thank you for this. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. seeing no one else on the roster, may we take this same house, same call? and without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 75. >> item 75 was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on monday, july 26, 2021. this motion prepared in committee and was recommended with the addition of the appointees' names. item 75 now reads motion appointing raphael morales, jennifer finger, elizabeth maguire, fernando, christian evans, michele pierce and chai for indefinite terms to the working group. >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. i just wanted to take a minute to thank everyone involved in

this really, especially the public bank coalition for their recommendation to working group members and to thank all the folks who applied. i want to thank you, president walton, for working with our office and the coalition around potential candidates and making these appointments. i also want to recognize supervisor haney for his leadership in making sure -- and the budget committee members for making sure we had the money so we could move forward with our public bank work this year. and also, supervisor chan, for her leadership, particularly where some of the work will be held as well. finally, just to recognize the early leadership on this issue, former supervisor john abloss and sandy fewer and current member david chiu for the statewide work. >> president walton: i, too, want to go on record and thank

former supervisor fewer for her work on the public blank. we had aspirations of making this possible when we served on the board of education together and she continued to push. i want to thank assembly member chiu for making sure he introduced this so we could get the approval to charter a public bank locally. i want to thank you for your work on this and all of the appointments. with that said, seeing no one else on the roster, can we take this same house, same call? without objection, this motion is approved unanimously. madame clerk, we are at item 76, roll call for introduction. >> supervisor mar, you're first up to introduce new business. >> supervisor mar: submit. >> thank you. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, mr. speaker. colleagues, tonight i have three items. the first one is an accept and

expend ordinance authorizing the office of cannabis to accept and expend a grant award of a million dollars from the board of state and community corrections from proposition 64 funds. this money will help our department of public health be able to have programs to mitigate the access and exposure to cannabis by public youth. programs are based on leadership development of youth and understandings the environmental and cultural impacts of substance use as children. it will create a new position at the office of cannabis that will ensure compliance of new cannabis businesses. it will increase inspection of

applicants and operators and just, you know, add to our capacity to support this nascent industry. and also to be able to respond more quickly to cannabis-related complaints from the public. so, the second item that i am introducing is a resolution. there are many priorities that we have these days, but the climate crisis and making investments that we ensure that our kids and grandkids have a sustainable future is foremost. i am introducing a resolution supporting h.r.2307. the energy innovation carbon dividend act. and i want to thank my early co-sponsor supervisors mar, chan, haney and mandelman. and also want to thank the feedback that we received from 350 bay area, sun rise youth

movement and d.s.a. i'm looking forward to continuing to work with these folks. it is not the solution, but a carbon fee is essential to making fossil fuels less competitive. we had a decarbonization hearing that was sponsored by supervisor mar at the land use committee on monday and we definitely heard about how local policies and federal energy policy is related and the success that we can have. so, our planet is burning and we need to act to get a carbon fee and a carbon dividend initiated in the u.s. as has happened in other countries already. there are competing bills intended to address climate change in various ways, but h.r.2307 is one of the best carbon-pricing solutions. thank you. and last, i am introducing an in

memory am. he was the beloved father of our board of appeals president commission darryl honda. he was born on june 27, 1934 to his parents in the sugar plantation town in hawaii located on the big island. this is during a time hawaii was considered just a territory and not a state. mr. honda was a third generation japanese-american. his grandfather originally immigrated from hiroshima, japan? in the late 1800s. after attending and graduating the high school in 1952, he enlisted in the u.s. army and

was stationed in the sixth infantry division in california. after four years of military service, miles liked california so much that he decided to stay and attend fresno state university. he had a degree in business administration and met his wife. and in 1966, he decided to move back to hawaii, this time to honolulu. his first job was with remington rand and they started their own products company where he worked for 40 years until his retirement in 2000. in his retirement years, miles moved to san francisco. to the west side to be closer with his son daryl and his family. after several years, finding it too cold, he moved back to his parents' home country in hawaii where he stayed until last

november. then with severe health failings, the decision was made to have miles move back to san francisco to daryl's family so they could care for him. miles passed peacefully on the morning of july 20, 2021 with his family by his side. he is survived by his two children. miles' daughter and her two children. he's also survived by his three younger brothers who are all retired and have all moved back to the big island of hawaii. as per his wishes, he will be buried next to his mother at the mission which is located -- it is the oldest japanese buddhist temple in the united states. it was founded in the late 1700s and holds the generations of

three -- remains of three generations of hondas. he was proud of his children and grandchildren and his memories live through him. i want to extend our deepest condolences to darryl honda and his family. >> supervisor peskin: together, together with supervisors, as cosponsors, i'm introducing a resolution in support of the california recycling and plastic pollution act, otherwise known as plastics-free california which qualified last week for the 2022 november ballot. the ballot measure would require producers of plastic packaging and food ware to make their plastics fully recyclable, reusable or compostable as well as eliminate certain single-use food ware that can't meet the

standards. revenues would be directed to diversion of plastics from landfills. it's been a very long road to get to the ballot. and it's going to be an even longer road to prevail at the ballot. out of state petroleum and plastic lobbies are gearing up to spend tens of millions of dollars against this, which is a continuation of their successful efforts to capture the california state assembly and state legislature to put their profit over the health and survival of our struggling planet. i've long said that the ballot is the ultimate court of last resort. and despite the best efforts of our own -- delegation, our state

legislature have been cowed by big petroleum along the way. i want to thank linda is ca lawn today for being one of the main sponsors of the statewide ballot measure. and even locally, recology was a big proponent of this as they're seeking ways to divert from our landfills, together with a growing coalition statewide. san francisco with this resolution would be the first municipality in the state to formally support this measure for the 2022 ballots. and i don't want to depress you late in the evening, but by mid century, and we're almost a quarter into the new century, it's estimated there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish. the weight of plastic in our oceans will be more than the weight of all the fish in our