family. he was retired auditor and moved to the united states to be close to his daughter and grandchildren. he helped watch them while his daughter attended school. he was well known in his community for his hour-long walks, a ritual that kept him healthy. while on a walk this year, he was violently shoved and tragically died after the attack. this was one of the many senseless acts of violence committed against asians over the past year. recorded 7,000 hate incidents involving asian americans and pacific islanders since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic. since his passing, his daughter and husband have both worked hard to ensure survivors of these attacks and their families are supported through city services, law enforcement and the justice system. i'm honored that the loving

family members entrusted me to work on the request to rename a public stairwell near their home after their father. it will serve as a meaningful way to memorialize him. and finally, i would like to close today's meeting in memory of leanna. born in 1931. she was a center piece of san francisco's italian american community. a friend of many, she was known of the love of italian heritage and love of san francisco. a few days before she passed, she called her kids and said get my dress ready, i wasn't to be buried in that. she was an energetic woman and until her last days was still giving orders. in 1976, she was presented with the star of italian solidarity

from the president of the republic of italy and would always be seen wearing this cherished item. she is a pillar of the community. she will be remembered for her determination, strength and love of her family. i offer sincere condolences for all who knew her and to her son, joe, who is a former city employee. and a good friend. she will be missed, but her legacy will live on. supervisor peskin, i would like be added as a co-sponsor supporting the plastic pollution reduction act. >> clerk: thank you. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. colleagues, today i along with supervisor safai am initiating the process to rename donor street and alice griffith housing project to charley way.

it's to honor charlie walker, an icon. you cannot talk about bayview hunters point without saying the name charley walker. we called him the mayor of hunters point. former mayor call him the mayor of bayview. charley has helped hundreds to possibly thousands of young black men and women into the field of construction and small business. before california jail realignment, countless black men and women would be returned home to the bayview community unable to find employment because of their criminal record. no one would hire them but charley walker.

the trucking and construction company gladly employed formerly incarcerated from the community. for most of his life in the bayview, he was fighting for resources while the city was allocating resources to the other part of the city. when we talk about equity and reparations and all the work that we need to do in the city, charley is one of the last civil rights witnesses that can share with you how unfair the city was to black people. because of fearless leaders like charley walker, dr. jackson, shirley jones, willie kennedy, adam rogers and eloise westbrook and so many others, i'm here in this seat as the first african-american male to serve as president of the board of

supervisors representing district 10 which includes the bayview hunters point community. today, i'm honored to initiate this process. on saturday, july 24, mr. charley walker celebrated his 88th birthday. he's one of the last living civil rights leader of the bayview. colleagues, i'm also introducing a resolution and support of california state senate joint resolution 8 introduced by senator along with my cosponsors supervisors mar and supervisor haney. this resolution would urge the president and congress of the united states to amend specific provisions of the federal social security act to allow recipients of adult child benefits to continue to receive those benefits upon marriage. these recipients are currently forced to choose between food,

medicine and rent or marriage which causes a complete loss of benefits for disabled adults. disabled adults should not worry about losing their benefits if married. the current law is a direct violation of the united nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and it is anti-family. i also would like to request that madame clerk add the in memoriam for commissioner honda's father to be presented on behalf of the entire board of supervisors. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. supervisor chan? thank you. haney? submit, thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, madame clerk. i have a couple things today. first, i have some updates on a

few pieces of land use legislation. i have discussed previously during roll call. taken together, these ordinances aim to reorient our zoning code to discourage the production of large single-family residences affordable to wealthy households and encourage smaller family residences instead. in february i entered an ordinance to establish a use requirement. that ordinance went before the planning commission last week and the planning commission will take it up again in september. i look forward to bringing a set of large resident reviews that will take into account the feedback from the commission and the community. in may, i introduced a specked piece of legislation -- second piece of legislation that current restrict housing in our cities and neighborhoods and most of the land area. that ordinance would allow for a density exception in rh-1, 2,

and 3 on corner lots for those not seeking exceptions under the state density bonus programs. the programs were established during the suburban area of the 1970s when san francisco's population was three quarters of what it is today. since then are the city has grown by 200,000 people and added over half a million jobs, but only about 70,000 new housing units. during that time, we all know what happened to housing prices. since the 2008-09 recession, the median sale price has tripled to $1.5 million and median rent has doubled to $4500 per month before the pandemic. this is by no means been a uniquely san francisco problem. in 2016, a study found that california ranked 49th of out of 50 states in the number of housing units per person.

this board's representatives have done our best to get historic exclusion jurisdictions to increase their housing numbers instead of relying on san francisco to be a bedroom community for their workforce. that said, we have to do our part to address the dire regional housing shortage. that means opening up new housing opportunities here. equity demands will spread them city-wide rather than relying on a few neighborhoods to bear the entirety of new production. the ordinance was limited to corner lots for a couple of reasons. it was a concept discussed in the covid-19 economic recovery task force. participant identified corner lots given they offer greater street frontage that can

accommodate multi-family buildings and based on the historic pattern of larger higher density buildings on corners. secondly, i've been advised this limited approach could advance this year with a relatively short review from the planning department. that is almost complete and the ordinance is going before the planning commission in september. but in may, i stated my intention to continue pursuing a proposal and that's the ordinance i'm introducing today. this would be structured the same as the corner lot ordinance, allowing a density waiver for up to four units for projects not seeking height or build exceptions through the state density bonus. because this requires more analysis than the corner lot proposal, the action by the board to approve will have to wait until later next year following certification for the eir for the 22 housing elements.

i'm putting this ordinance forward today to keep the four plex conversation moving forward and bring san francisco in line with other california cities who have expressed their intent to adopt four-plex zoning within the next year or so. i know my west side colleagues are involved in efforts in ways to open up our neighborhood to new housing while protecting the character of the neighborhoods. i want to recognize your courage and leadership in having those conversations which are not always easy ones. i want to acknowledge that you have taken to developing your own four-plex zoning proposals as well. to increase housing opportunities across the city. i want to thank my office for his work on all three of these pieces of legislation. secondly, i am announcing a letter of inquiry that i will be

sending to the san francisco sheriffs department regarding ankle monitoring. and this actually comes out of the list. the district list which some of you may have heard of. it's a list of folks that we keep of people who are very challenged and challenging for the communities in which they reside. all of them are -- almost all of them are unhoused. and many are having repeated encounters with the system. in one case, one of the folks on this list that we keep was killed or died. and in another case, another of these folks killed someone. for me, one of the measures of the progress of our mental health reforms will be when i actually see folks on this list getting the care that we know they need. and we haven't seen that yet.

but this particular case, this individual, suffers from serious mental health issues, regularly starts fires in the street, steals catalytic converters and sets off explosions. engages in menacing behavior, carrying a baseball bat and sometimes assaults people. in may, this individual was arrested for felony assault with a deadly weapon. a month later, the individual was released into a drug treatment program on a case management and ankle monitor. within a week, the individual had violated the terms of the program -- and we don't know why that was, but we assume it was either failure to report or leaving the program prematurely or both, creating great anxiety in the community. the person entered warrant status, but to the relief of neighbors, was rearrested shortly thereafter. on july 13, only a month after

the rearrest, the individual was again released to a drug treatment program again on electronic monitor. six days later the individual violated the program, again, a warrant was again issued for the individual's arrest and they were arrested this past sunday. so there is so much wrong with this story. in so many ways. but one of the things and the thing i would like to begin exploring with letter of inquiry is how the superior court is using ankle monitors. because this particular experience with a person in district 8 took me back to a visit that supervisor stefani and i took to the sheriff's office community program building some months ago. and while there we learned about the ankle monitoring program and learned that more than a hundred folks who are on ankle monitors are -- or had been released on

ankle monitors had been in warrant status. that's about 25% of a quarter of folks out on ankle monitors. and the concern there was that the folks who are released are folks who have been charged with pretty significant crimes. murder, attempted murder, rape, assault, domestic violence. we've all heard over this year news stories about folks who are arrested, released on electronic monitoring and have been rearrested, not like the person on my list for violating the program, but for new crimes. stabbing of 94-year-old woman in the tenderloin in june was one such incident. today, i am announcing this letter of inquiry to the san francisco sheriff's department. the current number of

individuals for failure to comply with their electronic monitoring. the number of people who failed to comply with the terms during the past year. and the number of times they have failed and a breakdown of the charges of those released on monitoring. and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you. seeing no names on the roster, that concludes the introduction of new business. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk and thank you colleagues. we're now at public comment. >> at this time the board of supervisors welcomes general public comment. here you may speak to items that have not been to committee, but are on this agenda. you may speak to the subject matter jurisdictions of the board that do not appear on that agenda. i want to point out regarding item 87 we do have a small error on the agenda. the agenda states not referred.

but, in fact, the item was properly referred to this portion of the agenda as it is here. we do have a glitch in our system to account for that problem. but i wanted the public to know if they're interested in speaking about item 87, they certainly may and we apologize for any confusion. interpreters have gone home for the evening. my apologies. i believe we have four callers in the queue. can we hear from the first caller, please? >> thank you. this is peter warfield, executive director of library users association. i heard a voice. library users 2004. i hope you'll give me a little

extra time of the library is carrying on coverup of its illegal activity. unlawful exclusion of the public from its public meetings of the library commission. my group library users association brought a complaint about this in the sunshine ordinance task force appointed by the supervisors, found that the library had, in fact, violated the law in two ways. not only did the library commission violate the law, it made no necessary procedural changes after the violation was determined on june 2nd. and to top it off, the commission subsequently tried to cover up what happened by silencing in its minutes the details we provided in the library's meetings. the sunshine task force minuteses of june 2nd say the following, the library commission violated administrative codes on section 67.15 by failing to allow public comment and 67.13a by requiring payment to attend the meeting by

telephone from outside the phone toll area. unfortunately, the coverup minutes said the following. peter warfield, executive director of library users association spoke about the june 2, 2021 sunshine ordinance task force meeting and how they ruled on a complaint he had brought against the library commission. how they ruled. nothing about what they violated. nothing that it had to do with democracy and open governance and nothing about they didn't want to hear from us about their reopening plan which doesn't provide full service for a long time to come. thank you very much. >> thank you. we have five listeners in the queue. if you expect to provide public comment this evening, please press star 3. otherwise, we'll take the group that is in the queue to the very end.

next caller, please. >> good evening, president walton and supervisors. cath carter with. i apologize for making the meeting longer than it is. we wanted to thank supervisor mandelman for introducing the resolution, proclaiming september 20, 2021 as the 6th annual transit month in the city and county of san francisco. as stated in the resolution, public transit is access for all san franciscans and it's essential to address safe streets, climate change and goals. sfmta have put their lives on the line to keep our city moving. we can look forward to building our economy and transit system. for transit month of september, we want to welcome you and everybody back on muni. thanks all the drivers and the sfmta staff who keep us going. join us in more discussions

about the future of muni that we want and need. transit pictures and videos and for great transit stories, we ask you, our elected leaders to ride muni throughout september and treat your experience. we would love to who rides the most and who has the most interesting transit stories. transit rally 845 time a.m. wednesday, september 8 and thank you for your support in transit month. have a great recess and we'll see you on the bus in september. >> thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> madame clerk, that completes the queue. >> thank you. mr. president? >> president walton: -- my apologize ys.

-- apologies. thank you so much. public comment is now closed. my apologies, supervisor preston and i were checking in. madame clerk, would you call the items for adoption without committee reference? >> item 78 through 89 were introduced for adoption without reference to committee, a unanimous vote is required for resolutions on first reading today. alternatively any member may require a resolution to go to committee. >> president walton: thank you so much. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. could i be added as a co-sponsor to 82 and 84 and 85? >> sure. >> president walton: supervisor mandelman. >> >> supervisor mandelman: can i sever 81? >> president walton: thank you. >> supervisor safai: yes. thank you, mr. president. i just want to confirm -- please add me as a co-sponsor of item

number 82. >> clerk: noted. >> president walton: thank you. >> supervisor melgar: i'd like to separate 83 and 85 and i was wondering if supervisor ronen is going to speak to 82, otherwise i will sever it and speak to it. okay. >> president walton: just 83 and 85? >> and also 82, thank you. >> and 82? i didn't hear you. >> supervisor melgar: yes, yes, 82 also. >> president walton: thank you. madame clerk, would you please -- i'm sorry, i would like to sever item 78. madame clerk, would you please call the roll on the remaining items. >> on items 79, 80, 84, 85 -- 85

you were severing? 86, 87, 88, 89. >> 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: without objection, the resolutions are adopted and the motions are approved unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 78. >> item 78 motion to approve final map, resulting in up to nine lots including up to 310 condominium units for a mixed use residential and commercial project.

and to acknowledge the appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you so much. colleagues, as you know, i wanted to continue this item, number 78. we had in place -- well, the item was a final map to be approved for hunters view. i had major concerns about approving a final map without all of the financing for affordable housing to be secured for that final map in that phase. i did have a chance to check in with mo.c.d. over the week. and one of the things they did provide was a letter. there is an important piece of the letter that gets me more comfortable with moving forward with approving the final map. and in the letter, it states, understanding the importance of fulfilling our promises to the current and future low-income residents of hunters view, we commit to you that we will not pursue the sale or development

of any market race parcels in phase 3 until the affordable housing is fully funded. so that time that we sent over the week, i want to thank mocd for forwarding that letter and continuing work on securing financing for affordable housing, not only for help sf project and hunters view, but all across hope sf projects. with that said, madame clerk, i believe we can take this item, same house, same call? if there are no objections and without objections, this final map passes unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 81. >> 81 is a resolution to proclaim september 2021 as the 6th annual san francisco transit month. >> supervisor mandelman: a little bit of apple pie to bring

us all together. this is a resolution declaring september transit month. 2021 and it builds off the annual transit week events which have been organized by san francisco transit riders for the past five years. this will, however, be the first year that the city declares a full transit month. and, of course, it couldn't come as a more critical time for our city. as we continue to emerge from the pandemic, the need for great public transit that never been more clear with transit service, both local and regional, still grapping with the shelter in place orders and with the looming prospect of many city office workers returning to in-person work in september, san francisco is at an important decision point. will we renew our investment in a transit-first san francisco or

not? our vision zero goals will be in jeopardy to end pedestrian fatality by 2024 will be hobbled by increased car traffic. our commitment to equity will be strained as essential workers find it harder to get to work. and our climate action target by 2040 depends to a large extent on us achieving the interim goal we adopted, 80% of trips by transit, walking, bikes, or other sustainable modes by 2030. there are positive signs. through the pandemic we never saw a dip below 100,000. and many muni lines are back to 100% of pre-pandemic ridership. we're anticipating the restoration next month. which will put every san franciscan within a quarter mile walking distance of a train or bus stopped and include the

restoration of routes and expansion of late night service. we have to keep building on the progress. we all agree we need to get to 100% of pre-pandemic service and beyond that. and frankly, we need to make sure that service is a lot more reliable than before. transit month will be an opportunity to shine a spotlight, celebrate the commitment to a safe sustainable and equitable city that public transit represents and honor the dedication of our transit operators who have put themselves in harm's way and overcome unprecedented challenges to keep our transit running for the good of all san franciscans. in closing, i want to recognize the san francisco transit riders for their great advocacy in organizing this vent. and again, i want to thank all of you for your unanimous co-sponsorship today. thank you. >> president walton: thank you. i believe we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this

resolution is passed unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 82. >> item 28 is a resolution to urge president joe biden to fully lift title 42 restrictions at the united states-mexico border to allow vulnerable and exploited people seeking asylum including single adult, lgbtq couples and families to enter the country and ease the crisis at the border caused by policies hostile to migrants. >> president walton: thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. supervisor ronen introduce this had legislation and spoke to it eloquently last week. thank you for your co-sponsorship. this morning supervisor ronen and i joined a large group of immigration advocates across the street to call attention to this issue. and the fact that president biden has not yet reversed the

disastrous policy that former president trump implemented in weapon incentivizing -- weaponizing title 42, using the fear of covid to further an anti-immigrant agenda and exploiting public health to block entry of migrants seeking asylum. this continues under this administration. it is disgraceful and a betrayal of our democratic and humanitarian values and some that motivated many of us to campaign for a democratic president. why i think it's important for san francisco to take a stand is because i'm here and supervisor chan is here. i came to this country at able 12 in 1980 after a very tumultuous year in el salvador.

where the archbishop was kill and my father had an assassination attempt against him and my mother went underground with the revolution. so someone like me needed the refugee stat that we got. and like many millions of immigrant who have contributed our work, our life to the city and this country, we need to pave the way for the upholding of international human rights and we are hoping in calling attention to the reverse al of this policy by our democratic president. thank you. >> president walton: thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: yes, please add me as a co-sponsor. >> clerk: noted. >> president walton: thank you. i do just want to say, thank supervisor ronen, for pushing this forward. i did, too, have a chance to attend the press conference as

we were in meeting this morning and appreciate all the advocates. this is important. we need for our president to step up around immigration policy. so thank you so much, supervisor ronen. with that, i believe we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call item 83. >> resolution commending ethyl davies on her 100th birthday and declaring that day as ethyl davies day. >> this is my apple pie. i wanted to briefly share with you about ethyl davies, one of san francisco's most remarkable and well respected people. and a district 7 resident. ethyl was born to greek immigrants and grew up on chiply street in soma, which was known

as greektown. her brother former mayor of san francisco christopher davies may be better remembered in history, but ethyl is an icon in and of herself. she has dedicated her life to bettering our city, having served on numerous boards, including the san francisco war memorial board of trustees. ethyl has a strong sense of civic pride, having attended some of the city's best public institutions like mission high school, city college and eventually san francisco state. she is incredibly resilient. after living through the great depression, she left college to pursue a job. and gif given her deep roots in the community she returned to san francisco to continue serving the community. ethyl is known to her friends and family as a unique gem. she is loving, supporting and passionate, working tirelessly to uplift other people in her community.

her youthful energy radiates throughout the city and she's still fighting strong. she is turning 100 years old. and has a very full social calendar. she is a true inspiration to everyone. and i'm so honored to declare september 1st ethyl's day. it is her birthday, her 100th birthday. it will be ethyl davies day in the city and county of san francisco. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you. and we can take this same house, same call? and without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item number 85. >> item 85, this is resolution to support and urge departments to ease facilitate for beautification projects on public property, including but not limited to the improvement projects for the kensington bridge, hemlock bridge, low

acuity continuing care facility in the presidio and the richardson triangle in cal hollow. >> i want to thank supervisors for co-sponsoring this item since it was introduced. it is a resolution or the city department to facilitate and expedite a clear and easy process that supports community initiated beautification projects and public land. across all of our neighborhoods, we have those residents who volunteer their time to clean up our city streets, organize activities to promote our culture. crowd source food and supplies for residents in need and promote beautification projects to help prevent vandalism, graffiti and promote safety. we have so many processes and procedures to authorize these activities on public land, from

murals to beautification permits and tiled steps. we have procedures that allow neighbors to steward unwanted medians and open space, but every so often there comes a community proposal that is seemingly simple, but unveils just a web of tape. and it -- red tape. it frustrates volunteers. we have a bridge in the neighborhood on kensington and portola, the neighborhood has started cleaning it up. and then we hit a brick wall. we -- it is time to that -- we just wanted to paint the columns on the bridge, but we were met with red tape from the department of real estate and

arts division. we have a bridge that connects sunnyside to supervisor safai's neighborhood. it's another project years in the making and lots of volunteers. i'm so appreciative of the staff of public works, but their hands are tied by our procedures. and so i, this resolution is asking for a clear manual process by which neighborhood volunteers can apply to a department and get permission and help support. i want to especially thank carol from the west portal and christine from sunny side who have been such dedicated community leaders and have not given up, even in the face of so many challenges. i cannot wait for the day we can make it simple and efficient for everyday people to give back to the city we love. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. and we take this same house,

same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, do we have any imperative agenda item? >> none to report, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you. and this brings us to the end of our agenda. is there any further business for us today? >> clerk: in memoriam. >> please read them. >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the followed beloved individuals on behalf of supervisor melgar, and on order of the president of the board to be on behalf of the entire board of supervisors for the late mr. miles honda. on behalf of supervisor peskin and supervisor stefani for the late mr. charles frackia. and behalf of supervisor stefani

for the late figone. >> i want to end the meeting with this quote. when we listen and celebrate what is both common and different, we become a wiser, more inclusive and better organization. this meeting is adjourned.

. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. [roll call]

>> clerk: mr. president, you have a quorum. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk. the san francisco board of supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their tradition, the

ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their tradition homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the members, descendants, and ancestors of the ramaytush ohlone and its first peoples. colleagues, would you place your right hand over your heart and join with me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. ["pledge of allegiance"]

>> president walton: on behalf of the board of supervisors, today, we would like to acknowledge the staff of sfgovtv. today, we have colina mendoza, who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public on-line. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> clerk: yes, mr. president. thank you, members. the board of supervisors asks the public to continue to monitor these proceedings remotely by either watching the live stream at www.sfgtv.org or on cable channel 26. the best way to listen to the proceedings is with your cell where you will be listening in synch with the proceedings

until it's your time to speak. you may do so by calling in to 415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. 146-761-9163. press pound, and pound again, and wait to press star, three until you hear your item for comment. we'll begin with three special orders at 3:00 p.m. each will have their public comment hearing once the item is called. items 56 through 59, that's the hearing -- public hearing, appel of conditional use authorization disapproval. that is for 5 leland avenue and 365 bayshore avenue and 49 texas street. the president may make a motion

to continue this item to october 5, 2021, and appeal 67, the appeal of conditional use authorization for 5801 mission street. the president may also entertain a motion to continue this item to september 21, 2021. if these hearing items are continued, there will be public comment taken on the motion to continue. regarding general public comment, wait for item 77 to are called. that's when you're be able to speak to the approval of the meeting minutes as presented. the items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction that do not appear on this agenda, and items 78 through 89, appearing at the end of the agenda. and again, all other agenda content has had its public requirement comment fulfilled at committee, and specifically, the city's budget items, item 29 through 33, are not eligible for public comment. the board of supervisors

accepts public comment by mail. use the address board of supervisors, room 244, city hall, 1 carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california, 94102. interpret assistance will be provided for general public comment today between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to assist speakers with their language needs. today, we will have four interpreters that will be joining us for the 3:00 p.m. special order. for spanish, cantonese,

filipino. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, and before we get started, colleagues, just a friendly reminder to mute your microphones when we are not speaking. today, we are approving the meeting minutes for june 16, june 17, and june 23 at the budget and appropriations committee, which constituted a quorum of the board, and the june 22, 2021 regular board meeting minutes. can i have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? motion made by supervisor row row -- ronen, seconded by supervisor peskin. madam clerk, may i have a roll

call on the votes. >> clerk: on the motion to approve the minutes -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. madam clerk, please call consent agenda items 1 through 17. >> clerk: items 1 through 17 are on consent. these items are considered to be routine. if a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. >> president walton: thank you. does anyone wish to consider anything separately? i don't see anyone. seeing no one on the roster, madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to approve the consent agenda -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading and finally passed unanimously. madam clerk, please call item number 18. >> clerk: item 18 is an ordinance to aamend the park code to allow the recreation and park department to continue setting nonresident adult admission fees for the japanese tea garden, the conservatory of flowers and the san francisco botanical garden by flexible pricing until december 7, 2021, clarifying that the increased

nonresident adult admission fees for the coit tower elevator shall be deemed to have expired by operation of law on june 30, 2021, and affirming the ceqa determination. >> president walton: all right. seeing no changes, can we take this same house, same call? item passes unanimously. madam clerk, can you call item 19. >> clerk: item 19 is an ordinance approving health service system plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2021. pursuant to charter section a-8.422, this matter shall require a vote of nine votes of all members of the board of supervisors to approve. >> president walton: seeing no one in the roster, can we call this same house, same call?

so approved. madam clerk, call items 20 and 21. >> clerk: item 20 is the budget and preparation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and all estimated expenditures for departments of the city and county as of june 1, 2021 for the fiscal years ending june 30, 2022 and june 30, 2023. item 21 is an annual salary ordinance he enumerating positions in the annual budget and proposition ordinance for the fiscal years ending june 30, 2022, and june 30, 2023.

item 23 is the ordinance amending the health code to set patient rates and rates for other services provided by the department of public health for fiscal years 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023. and item 24 is an ordinance appropriating a total of 19.3 million of hetchy power revenue bonds fob the san francisco public utilities commission hetch hetchy capital improvement program and deappropriating 2,000 low carbon fuel standard funding for fiscal year 2021-22, deropinging 6.8 million hetchy revenue funds to hetchy fund

balance in fiscal year 20-201, and placing 19.3 million of power bands by project on controller's reserve subject to certification of funds available. and item 29, ordinance to amend the annual salary ordinance fiscal year 20-21 and 21-22 to reflect the substitution of three positions at the airport commission and the substitution of nine positions and the addition of 23 positions at the san francisco public utilities commission. item 30 is an ordinance amending the police code to lower the fee for a street artist certificate.

item 31 is ordinance adopting the neighborhood buttefication and graffiti cleanup fund tax designation ceiling for tax year 2021. item 32 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to require the rent board to collect the rent board fee through invoices rather than through the property tax bill, to impose penalties in the event of nonpayment of the fee, and to clarify existing law regarding the procedures for landlords to recover a portion of the fee from their tenants. and item 33 is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to update emergency medical services fees to reflect amounts currently authorized and charged under annual adjustment provisions and to require that the fees be paid to the department of emergency management rather than the department of public

health. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. will you please call the roll. >> clerk: on items 24 through 33 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are ten ayes and one no, with supervisor peskin in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you. and with a vote of 10-1, these items finally pass. madam clerk, would you please call item 34. >> clerk: item 34 is a resolution retroactively approving a california

department of parks and recreation habitat conservation fund grant contract in the amount of $200,500 that requires the recreation and park department to maintain a certain portion of sharp park as habitat for the san francisco garter snake for the duration of the contract performance period from july 1, 2019 through june 30, 2039, pursuant to charter, section 9.118-a, and authorizing the recreation and park department general manager to file a deed restriction. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i would like to move to incorporate number one to that new exhibit, unless the city attorney believes that that new exhibit that was circulated to all of you today is already incorporated; and second is, i

would also like to make a motion -- and second, i would also like to make a motion, while it would still approve the acceptance from the moneys of state of california, would not authorize the general manager of the recreation and parks department to enter into modifications and amendments to the grant contract, including to any of its exhibits. so i would like to move, at page two, after, on-line 18, the word contract, to insert a period there, and to remove the rest of that resolve provision on the balance of that page and the first two lines of page 3. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. do we have a second? thank you. there's a motion to amend made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor chan, and i believe these are not

substantive. they are not. city attorney says they are not. with that, madam clerk, can we have a roll call vote on the amendments? >> clerk: on the amend to item 34 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, these amendments are passed. madam clerk, would you please call the roll for item 34 as amended. >> clerk: on item 34 as amended -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, this item is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, would you please call item 35. >> clerk: item 35 is an ordinance to amend the environment code to update the city's climate action goals and planning process, and establish departmental roles and responsibilities, and to affirm the ceqa determination. >> president walton: seeing no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, call new business.

>> clerk: new bid. item 36 is an ordinance waiving certain first year permit, license, and business registration fees for certain businesses. >> president walton: thank you. we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this item is passed unanimously. madam clerk, call items 37 through 39 together. >> clerk: items 37 through 39 pertain to three resolutions that pertain to multifamily resolution bonds to declare the intent of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to submit an complication and related documents to the california debt limit allocation

committee, or item -- for item 37, 600 7 street, for an amount not to exceed 9 million; for item 38, 151 and 351 friedell street, not to exceed 63 million, and item 39, sunnydale hope s.f. block 3-b, in a not to exceed amount of 58.7 million.

>> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. seeing no changes, we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, call items 40 and 41 together. >> clerk: item 40 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the police department to accept and expend an in-kind gift of 984 units of naloxone, and item 41 is a are you lesion retroactively authorizing the police department to accept and expend a grant from the california governa office of emergency services. >> president walton: thank you, and seeing no changes, we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, please call item

42 [agenda item read]. >> president walton: colleagues, seeing no one on the roster, can we take this same house, same call? without objection, the item is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call items 43 through 45 together. >> clerk: 43 through 45 are three retroactive resolutions that authorize the department of emergency management for the uasi to accept and expend from the department of homeland security, in item 43, grant

funds in the amount of approximately 1 million for a total of 33 million through the california office of emergency services for the period of september 1, 2020 through may 31, 2023. item 44, to accept and expend an increase to fiscal year 2020 securing the cities program grant funds in the amount of approximately 1 million for a total of 3 million from the united states department of homeland security for the period of march 9, 2021 through october 30, 2021, and item 45, for the purpose of obtaining state and federal financial stance under various grant programs. >> president walton: thank you. colleagues, seeing no one on the roster, with we take these

items same house, same call? without objection, the items pass unanimously. madam clerk, please call items 46 through 48.

[agenda item read]. >> president walton: colleagues, seeing no one on the roster, can we take these items same house, same call? without objection, items are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item

49. >> clerk: item 49 is a motion authorizing the release of reserved funds in the amount of 537,000 placed on board of supervisors' reserve by ordinance 165-20, to fund the new trash can design and deployment. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, president walton. i am still working on some things on this item. can we come back to this later in the meeting? >> president walton: we will come back to this item later in the meeting.

>> president walton: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. colleagues, i realize that this has been in committee for two separate meetings and has come to us without recommendation. i do have questions. i'm happy to answer them here, but i suspect that the city attorney will not want to answer them on the floor, but i am happy to ask them. if not, i would respectfully suggest that we have a closed session for all 11 members of the board. but simply put, insofar as this is a settlement, and the administrative code does not rule wherein debarment -- wherein a contractor can be debarred for five years. in this particular instance, i do not think that five years of debarment in a settlement conference is appropriate. i'm not content with that. i think that it should be

lifetime debarment as a portion of the settlement agreement. >> president walton: thank you for that, supervisor peskin. deputy city attorney pearson, is there anything you want to say on that? >> deputy city attorney ann pearson, i'm happy to answer any basic questions, but you're right, supervisor peskin, i would not be comfortable answering any technical questions in play. if you want to reconvene in september, i'm happy to do that. >> president walton: one question, city attorney pearson. can we vote on lifetime disbarment? >> i think the law allows for one five-year period of

disbarment. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: i do agree it is probably in the best interest of this body that we have a closed session to listen to, in greater details, about this case, from our city attorney. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, president walton. i would also support having a closed session on this item? i have the questions that were articulated by supervisor peskin, as well and additional questions because, you know, the activities of mr. wong over many, many years also requires the coordination and cooperation of folks within the city and in the field, and i'm wondering, you know, sort of accountability and repercussion for those folks, as well, and how it relates to the settlement. i also specifically have questions about the legislation that was introduced by my colleague, supervisor ronen,

about, you know, a list of bad actors, and how that relates to this five years or a lifetime or whatever it is that's imposed. so i would hold off voting on this until we discuss with the city attorney how we got to this point. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. president. i would just like to say, it sounded like from the city attorney, that current being the operative word is what gets us into disbarment. we can get into further discussion in closed session. actually, this was on my radar, as well. i don't feel comfortable, given the circumstances. it seems as though the fines that were being repaid are simply just the contracts that were awarded illegally, and they're just being reimbursed back to the city, so it seems

as though at the end of the day, the taxpayers -- it's a zero sum. they're just getting the money that was awarded illegally. it doesn't seem there were additional fines or penalties paid, and then, the further disbarment. i want to know, is that the individual, is that the individual's l.l.c.s and companies because an l.l.c. will outlive an individual. i think those are appropriate conversations to have in closed session, and i am absolutely in favor of continuing this item and have a closed session so we can more justly resolve this for the citizens of san francisco. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, mr. president. question to the city attorney and in follow up to supervisor melgar's comments, is there any specific legislative item we need to put forward to have a

closed session that not only deals with this settlement but deals with the overall investigation that led to this settlement because i'm very interested in, you know, articles that i've read in mission local, etc., that seem to indicate that mr. wong was not working alone, and we have not been briefed on the city attorney's investigation and, you know, what -- what all conconclusions they came to related to mr. wong and this case in general. is that something we can -- conclusions they came to relates to mr. wong and this case in general? is that something we can put forward here or is it something that we would be discussing in a scheduled closed session?

>> deputy city attorney ann pearson. i don't think the brown act extends to a broader discussion, which goes to the discussion of this particular settlement. we'd have to determine whether there are grounds for briefing in closed session to talk about that. but given what we'd like to to -- that. >> supervisor ronen: but given that what we'd like to discuss is the broader corruption of the department of building inspection, and given that that might lead to further litigation, i would guess that would not be something that the city attorney would be willing to have in public and would probably fit in the litigation exception. so i'm wondering, how do we have that discussion because it's been a while, and that discussion in s.f. local was shocking. it detailed mr. wong having staff embedded in d.b.i. that

would come in on weekends and have special files and special, you know, codes and color coded signs to indicate when it was his project. i mean, it is -- it is deep and perhaps on going, and sure, my legislation about a bad actors' list is one way to try to prevent this type of corruption in the first place, but we need to understand more about what's going on. i have a hearing that we'll hear in september in the land use committee on a very troublesome project in my district that did not have many inspections, whose -- the inspector who signed off on the very troublesome very dangerous project was recently fired -- or i'm not sure if he was hired or resigned or was fired

investigated by the city attorney's office, and we need to have a discussion. when do we as the governing body get to learn about the breadth of the investigation into d.b.i. and everything that this case touched and implicates. >> so for purposes of this settlement, i'm hearing that the board would like to continue this until after the break for closed session. during that closed session, there may be some details of the investigation that we may be able to share connected to the investigation itself. if you're looking forg a broader briefing, i think we should talk about a hearing request and learn more about what it is you'd like to be briefed on and learn to what extent it could or could not be done in a closed session. >> supervisor ronen: and i guess -- i don't know if i speak for all of my colleagues, but for myself, because of the

connection to so many others in d.b.i., and i don't know since i'm not on the g.a.o. committee, and we don't know what that committee knows or doesn't know, i'm [inaudible] how to decide on this item without understanding, you know, what we know broader than this item, if that makes sense, and so i would like to hear -- i would like to hear this item in closed session at the same time that we have a report about the overall investigation into corruption at d.b.i., and so i -- you know, if i have to introduce that today, i'm happy to do that, but i don't want to hear this item, i don't want to vote on this item until we have that discussion at the same time. >> i understand the connectedness of it, and again, they are separate discussions. if you'd like to initiate a

hearing request, we can do that but we'd have to look and see if it would be something that could be done in open session. if not, it would be a closed session discussion. >> supervisor ronen: so if i initiate a hearing request on this -- i know we call a motion to discussion an item in closed session. i've never had a hearing request and then hold that item in closed session. is that something that we do? >> clerk: through the president -- >> president walton: go ahead, madam clerk. >> clerk: through the president, to supervisor ronen, if the board wanted to continue this item to closed session, that could be made by motion today. >> supervisor ronen: so the question is, i definitely want to hear this item in closed session, but i don't know that i'm going to be able to vote on this item until i hear the broader implication on this case and what is currently happening in the city attorney's investigation into

d.b.i. you've all read the mission local articles. if you haven't, i recommend it. it's incredibly disturbing. so i'm wondering, should i ask for a close the session, should i ask for a hearing request? >> president walton: i was going to make a suggestion that, one, we deal with continuing the item, and we will set up a date for a closed session on this. you have some conversations with the city attorney about the possible ways to have a conversation in closed session, and we can have that conversation, as well, because right now, it doesn't seem that the city attorney can have that discussion without closed

session, and supervisor peskin, my apologies. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton, and thank you, supervisor preston, for indulging me in skipping. my suggestion is, why don't we continue this item to a closed session on september 14, where there is nothing on the forward calendar, and that will give supervisor ronen time to work with the city attorney and introduce something on september 7 that could inform her decision and vote on september 14. and to the extent that there are unprivileged things that we wish to disclose as to this item, we could do so when we heard this in closed session -- after closed session on september 14, and we could then get advice as to whether or not the contents of supervisor ronen's request would be appropriate in open session or closed session, what city

attorney opines, so we can deal with that in five weeks. >> president walton: is that a motion? >> supervisor peskin: i would like a motion to continue this item before us, item 50, to september 14, 2021. >> supervisor ronen: second. >> president walton: motion to continue this hearing to september 14, 2021, and seconded by supervisor ronen. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: i imagine, through the president, supervisor ronen, i imagine that there will be a combination of things that can be discussed with regard to the d.b.i. investigation and things that are public as well as things that may need to be dealt with in closed session. but either way, i do want to say just on the -- appreciate the motion to have the settlement heard in closed session. we did hear it twice in g.a.o.,

and just -- and forwarded it without recommendation so that that could be considered here by the full board and totally is certainly makes good sense to me that folks would want to hear more in closed session. i just want to thank deputy city pearson and ron flynn for their work and also for their time briefing us in two lengthy closed sessions and look forward to the third. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. madam clerk, on the motion to continue. >> clerk: on the motion to continue item 50 to september 14 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. motion to continue carries unanimously. madam clerk, would you please call items 51 and 52 together? >> clerk: items 51 and 52 called together are two resolutions that provide for the housing preferences reporting to the board of supervisors pursuant to administrative code chapter 47.4. item 51 receives the annual report for july 1, 2019 through june 30, 2020, and item 52 receives the three-year report for july 1, 2016 through june 30, 2019. >> president walton: thank you. i don't see anyone on the roster. can we take these items same house, same call? without objection, these items are adopted unanimously.

madam clerk, please call item 53. >> clerk: item 53 is a motion to appoint avava -- ovava eterei afhuaamango, willan palmer, terms ending march 1, 2023, and jayson wechter and michael nguyen, terms ending march 1, 2025, to the sheriff's department oversight board. >> president walton: okay. colleagues, can we take this same house, same call? items are passed unanimously.

>> clerk: the item is item 54. item 54 is a motion to approve the mayor's nomination for appointment of moses corrette to the successor redevelopment agency oversight board for a term ending january 24, 2022. >> president walton: seeing no one on the roster, can we take this item same house, same call? and without objection, this item is approved unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 55. >> clerk: item 55 is a motion approving the mayoral nomination for the appointment of jose lopez to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2024. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no one on the roster, can we take this item same house, same call? and without objection, this item is approved unanimously. madam clerk, it is not quite 3:00, so let's go to item 68.

>> clerk: items 68 through 71 were considered by the government audit and oversight committee at a special meeting on friday, july 23. item 68 was considered without recommendation. item 68 was a resolution authorizing the department of transportation to execute contract number sfmta 2020-46 for procurement of single and multispace parking meter hardware and support services with mackay meters,, inc. , to replace existing hectare ware in an amount not to exceed 70.5 million and for a term of five years, to commence following board approval, with the option to extend for five additional years. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton, and we

forwarded this item without recommendation, and frankly, colleagues, i am struggling with this one and looking to whether anyone has any comments or thoughts before making up my mind on this. we will be talking later about our resolution on restoring muni service. i think we had a long presentation at the t.a. today regarding the financial struggles of the m.t.a., and it is exceedingly difficult for me to square the representations around the lack of short-term funding to restore muni lines while at the same time seeing this $70 million contract for parking meter replacement. we had an in-depth discussion of this in committee. these are significant funds, some that are dedicated to capital improvements, others were operations and contingency

revenue. so looking forward to hearing other colleagues' view on this one, but i will say i continue to struggle with this item, given the juxtaposition on the item of restoring muni service. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor peculiar kin? >> supervisor peskin: can you -- thank you, president walton. yeah, colleagues, i'm wrestling with this in two arenas. if we have this money, is it the highest priority? but another question is -- and i had a chance to review the hearing, and i do agree with the chair of government audit and oversight preston that they did ask a bunch of very good questions. in my review of those transcripts, it's unclear if they got necessarily very good answers, so let me put those in a few different buckets.

one is around the true cost of the contract. when this first came across our screen, it was a 10 to $20 million contract, not a 70 dlsh plus million contract. had we known about that at the head of the contract, i would have had some 1818 questions. i understand we have to spend money to make money off parking meters, but that's a lot of money to spend to make some money. and then, there's the existing property shelf life. i understand as 3-g evolves to 4-g and 4-g evolves to 5-g, the service is limited, but i think they should still have a better shelf life. and then, when you look at mackay's actual proposal, they talk about being able to provide 4-g meters. that's very clear in their proposal, but what was said to the government audit and oversight committee was it was

a seamless transition to 5-g. that's not what mackay actually says in the written documents. they say there's a modular replacement that can update them to 5-g. it does not appear that those modules are free, but that they cost money. in addition, one of the selling points that was revealed in committee was this notion of an extended five-year warranty. that doesn't appear in the original r.f.p., so that's being negotiated after the fact and was not a part of the original r.f.p. so in addition to the kind of more fundamental policy question about well, if we have the money, and everybody, as we saw earlier today in the t.a. meeting, whether it's director of transportation tumlin or julie kirchbaum or supervisor preston, or all of us agree

that we want 100% restoration of service, whatever that means, and there's some nuance there, and there's some issue, it's a question of priorities, remaining shelf life. so i would like to get some answers to those questions, and maybe we can do that a little bit offline. and this hearing only happened on friday. maybe we can do that on september 7 and do a little more due diligence around the contract and around the underlying policy trade-off over the next month. any way, that's food for thought for all of you to consider. i have not made a motion. >> president walton: so supervisor peskin, and i know you have not made a motion, but is your thought process we continue this to the 7th, and then, we'll have a more productive conversation with representatives from m.t.a. here at the meeting? >> supervisor peskin: yes, sir. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you,

president walton. there is a reason why the g.a.o. committee, governmental audit and oversights -- oversights and audit committee voted without recommendation, simply because it's just a way that the contract was put together, too, just the timeline and process. we first kind of this matter came to us was in february, and we approved it through the -- the bond issuance for sfmta. we negotiated down from 287 million then to 129 million collectively if you recall, and out of which that, about $22 million was destined for the citywide meters upgrade. however, it wasn't forthcoming by sfmta at that time that it also included with the $22 million of, like, physical upgrade and capital improvement, but it wasn't included with them that an

r.f.p. went out in december 2020 for this specific contract, which showed the operation expense of $44 million over a decade. now this would also be mindful of approval of this contract, it's still going to take them three years to implement and upgrade the meter upgrade within this three-year contract term. it's just a lot of questions about timeline, money, and is this the money that we want to spend at this moment, when this is an agency that is really short on cash, so to speak -- or they don't know where their next cash -- round of cash is coming from, and especially today at our latest t.a. hearing. so that's something for us to think about. i think it's also about maybe sort of spending money. we approved some of their contract in, like, a fee waiver or lowering their fee for at

agency sometime ago. that was, like, a $13 million. i just think sort of all these sort of adds up a little bit, and let's try to get to a better understanding of how sfmta is spending money before we approve more contract would be my preference, as well, so i urge you to consider from, you know, wait on this and gather more information. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor chan, through the chair, for giving that background. what's interesting about this is is we had a very full debate in the budget committee on the amount of bond authority that would be authorized, and we did debate and have a conversation about the 22 million that was going to be utilized. supervisor peskin and i had some offline debates and

on-the-floor debates and debate with the m.t.a. what i think also maybe caused some confusion is instead of this going to budget, where this debate started, it went to g.a.o., so we were left out of the conversation. and you were absolutely right to point out that they made a specific point to underscore that 22 million of that money was going to invest in meter upgrades. now it is two separate pools of money. one is for capital improvements and one is for operations, and that also was presented to us in the budget committee. the thing that i find confusing about this is the point that supervisor chan made, is that it was never presented to us; that this was a contract that was already out.

it was never presented to us that this was -- 22 million would be added to an existing 50 million and then, they would go to 70 million. we never talked about outdated technology or upgraded technology. there's certain pools of money for capital improvements, and what i did appreciate was that this -- these dollars would be invested in a system that would generate future revenue. this larger conversation supervisor preston and chan are leading is is there optional money to operate a system versus over here, there's capital money. they do have the ability to take on debt, they do have the ability to flow, and there was some debate about the amount of money they should take onto then utilize their operations. my argument at the time was take on more debt. i know you're going to come

back and say you don't have enough money to maintain your operations. so this is what frustrates me. it frustrates me that it was a piece meal argument, piece meal presentation, and then, we're presented what amounts to a smaller amount. i'm sure you all asked a lot of these questions in g.a.o., one of the reasons why it was not given full support, but it was produced as a committee report. and i guess the only question i would ask, is you ask the question through the president or share of the committee, was there a timing aspect of this? was there a reason why they needed this as a committee report and why they were asking for this approval today, in terms of their contract, in terms of getting this resolved? i understand that it's not going to be utilized and fully operational for a few years,

but was there a reason why this was a committee report and a future aspect that the sfmta was trying to solve for? >> president walton: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, supervisor safai, for all the questions. yeah. some of the timing and how it ended up in g.a.o. is worth exploring. in some ways, it was a courtesy because we were calling for a hearing around the service issues, and there were a number of items that were m.t.a. related, and this was sort of before the recess, a sort of last opportunity to potentially move some of these items. we were under the understanding that there was some time pressure, which is why we agendized it as a committee report and agreed as a courtesy to have that heard in our last g.a.o. meeting. we asked about that at the hearing, and i will say did not find a compelling argument

for -- for it, the kind of urgency, but we had agree today have it calendared at the time and try to get it before this body before -- before the recess. so i -- i am not aware, as supervisor chan has pointed out the timelines on some of this, this was a relatively long-term project, and i'm not aware of an urgency or an impact if we were to continue it or hear it back -- in budget, if that was the budget committee's preference or, again, at this body. >> supervisor safai: that would just end my point. i think it would make sense if we were to send it back to the budget committee for further conversation. i will say that just in terms of the principle of upgrading our parking meters and the technology to generate and recruit more revenue makes sense to me, and that's why we

ultimately agreed with it at the time in the budget committee in this overall largest debt issuance, but the fact that this has been piece mealed out, and the conversation has been bifurcated out, and the body has not been given all of the information, i don't feel comfortable based on some of the questions that supervisor peskin has asked and the information that supervisor chan has asked. but i do think it should go back to the budget committee so we can tie that back to the original information that was presented to us. so i would make a motion, mr. president, that we send this item back to the budget committee for further conversation. >> supervisor peskin: second. >> president walton: thank you. motion to send item 68 back to budget and finance committee, seconded by supervisor peskin. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president walton. i think obviously there has been concerns raised, articulated very well by supervisor peskin around this,

and it's curious to me, after hearing there's no urgent need articulated by the m.t.a. to get to the board on a committee report, that this should still be in committee. so i think the motion is a good one, and before things get to the full board, you know, they need to be -- it should be fully based, i think, as committee, and -- at committee, and this has not happened. i support it going back to committee. >> president walton: supervisor stefani, thanks. madam clerk, can we get a motion on item 68, to send it back to committee? >> clerk: on the motion to send item 68 back to budget committee -- [roll call] >> clerk: mr. president, just to confirm, that was budget and

finance, correct? >> president walton: right. [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. and without objection, motion to send back to committee carries unanimously. madam clerk, i've been informed of a clerical mistake for item 54, so we need to rescind the vote for item 54. >> supervisor peskin: so moved -- or seconded. >> clerk: just scrolling back to 54, mr. president, just to let the public know which item we're -- item 54 is the item to approve mayor's nomination for

appointment of moses corette. you wanted to rescind the vote, and supervisor peskin seconded? >> president walton: yes. >> clerk: on the motion to rescind, can we do that without objection? >> president walton: yes, without objection. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: president walton, on page 2 of the motion, starting at line 9, we need to make some changes insofar as mr. corette, while i hold him in high esteem, he has not served as the director as

local 21. whereas moses corette will represent the largest number of employees currently employed by the redevelopment agency as a member of the international federation of professional and technical engineers local 21, semicolon, and. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. i believe that was a motion to amend the language? >> supervisor peskin: yes, sir. >> president walton: seconded by supervisor preston. madam clerk, on the motion to amend item 54, made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor preston, roll call,

please. [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: and without objection, the motion to amend passes unanimously. madam clerk, please call the roll on the remaining item. >> clerk: on item 54 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, and without objection, this motion is approved unanimously. madam clerk, can you please call our special order, items 56 through 59. >> clerk: item 56 through 59 is the first special hearing, appeal of conditional use authorization disapproval, at 5 leland avenue and 2400 bayshore

boulevard. items 57, 58, and 59 are the accompany motions. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk. colleagues, we have before us an appeal of the disapproval of a conditional use authorization for the project at 5 leland avenue and 2400 bayshore boulevard. after the hearing, the board will vote on whether to approve or disapprove the planning commission's disapproval of the conditional use authorization at 5 leland avenue and 2400 bayshore boulevard. we will proceed as follows: up to a ten-minute presentation by the appellant in this case, project sponsor, or their representative. two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to ten minutes of

presentation for an appeal by the planning department, up to ten minutes by the opposition party, two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal, and finally, up to three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant or their representative. i don't see any objections. seeing no objections, the hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. colleagues, does anyone have anything to say? i don't see anyone on the roster, so we will now ask the appellant to come forward. do we have them in the roster? >> clerk: yes, we do. >> president walton: thank you, and you have up to ten minutes. >> clerk: thank you. mr. rice? >> thank you. are we able to present?

>> clerk: yes. if you are the appellant or the representative, you're able to present now. we'll set your timer. >> great. can everyone see the screen? is that all working? >> clerk: yes, we can see your presentation. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is [inaudible]. we are here to appeal and overturn authorization [inaudible] in visitacion valley. this project has a lot of significance to our group -- >> clerk: mr. president, i'm going to ask the presenter, we're pausing your time. to operations, i can see the presentation, but i understand the board members -- you are able to see it now. okay. very good. thank you. my apologies for the interruption. i will resume your time now.

members can see your presentation. >> thank you. this project has a lot of significance to our group, our community, and equity program, and i want to thank the board for meeting with us today. so presenting this project are community leaders and activists tova reese and myself. today, we represent ten community leaders, 35 social equity applicants, 1,000-plus residents of the community of visitacion valley and 5,000 years of incarceration by the war on drugs collectively. today, we are fighting for them, like we always do. project history. 2017, this project began. it was 0% ownership and community was $0. in 2020, this project reapplied as an equity incubator with

$160,000 committed to social equity. by 2021, the project changed again, with 20% community ownership leaders and workforce training. after four years of fighting, one has a pathway to 100% community ownership, significant contribution to social equity incubation, and plans to be a citywide workforce development hub. next slide. looking [inaudible] incredible place, we have a path to 100% ownership in the project. all of us are community leaders, all of us are born and raised in san francisco. all of us are minorities and better represent equity applicants. we are committed to working with the organizations mentioned earlier, dedicated to

various causes, including violence prevention and other causes. collectively, we have secured over 10,000 jobs, and we have served the community for over 150 years collectively. at this time, i'll turn it over to my community brother, joe frederick. >> i'll be focused on addressing the planning commission's decision. just a little bit of an overview on that decision. the project was denied at planning of 4-3, and really specifically, in the planning commission's motion to deny the project, they stated that, quote, the project is, on balance, not consistent with the policies and objectives of the general plan, and the commission here by finds that approval of the conditional use authorization would not promote health, safety, and welfare in the city. now through our own investigation, we determined that finding made by the

planning commission were not justifiable and subject to approval. i'm going to be starting with section nine of the find beings of general plan compliance. section nine of the motion states that the project is on balance not consistent with the following objectives. so we're going to take on these objectives one by one and address those concerns and how we feel they're inconsistent. objective two is where we'll start. objective two is to maintain and enhance a sound and diverse economic base and fiscal structure for the city. now, this project, you know, from our perspective, this project will result in invest in infrastructure and will contribute in the way of taxes and resources, likely more than most other businesses on the leland corridor. cannabis is one of the only

stable industries to grow despite covid, and so for us, we really feel that this supports objective two and will actually be as successful to create a strong economic base for the city. objective three will serve the city, particularly the economically and unemployed disadvantaged. now this is a pretty strange objective for us, given that the presentation had a substantial component of workforce development. this project will create 10 to 15 jobs and will be also hosting the firsthands on paid internship training program for san francisco cannabis equity community. we are confused why the

planning commission would say this project did not fulfill that requirement. the next objective, which would be objective four, stated that, you know, we did not adequately provide security of employees and property. what you're seeing on the screen now is the security plan that we produced and provided and circulated to the community. outlined in the security plan, it talks about addressing concerns of double parking, construction, and unwarranted cannabis use. in addition to that security plan, we provided a floor plan that shows the placement of various security cameras to show that safety is a priority for this project. this security plan is based on over, you know, on a plan that was supported and approved nine times in the city of san francisco, so we feel that this is an adequate plan and that the planning commission should really support our plan for

security. additionally, you know, we guarantee that if anyone should violate our security guidelines that we can place an immediate ban on those who would violate, and also, we're committed to working in hand in hand with other organizations and businesses to secure the base, and this group clearly cares about all of the stakeholders and the committee's well-being, and we're submitting that we're meeting the objective. item 5, the statement is would not create an undue use of cannabis on the block, limiting retail commercial space, and that no district should include so many specialty stores that space is not available for businesses which serve the need of nearby residence dentds, so there were two things that we gathered from these statements. one is that there's too many

cannabis businesses in this area, and secondly, that there's no room for a cannabis business because we're going to be taking away an opportunity for another business to open. now based on our research, there are many vacancies on the leland corridor today, and we don't feel that by opening this store, we'll be taking away opportunities for other businesses to open. additionally, when it comes to saturation, there are four other areas that have two cannabis businesses within 600 feet of each other in the city, so it wouldn't be violating anything that hasn't already been carved out and approved by the city of san francisco. and additionally, when it comes to visitacion valley and the number of dispensaries, there's only two currently in the neighborhood. and if you were to look at

other areas of san francisco, including the bayview, there's only five dispensaries that serve that entire area of the city. now, there are other permits in the application process, but they're not open today, so we feel very strongly that there is not an overconcentration of businesses in the area. so with that, i'm going to pass it back to gainor. >> thank you. and so [inaudible] 101.1-b, motion states that the project would not contribute the character and [inaudible] that may prevent and will not constitute a beneficial development. it also states that an approval would not promote the health and safety and the welfare of the city. to be honest, the statement was offensive and disrespectful for someone like me who has been a long-term person in the community, born and raised and

work around public safety. the business would not promote the character of the neighborhood. that's what we do. our organizations have served thousands in the community for decades. [inaudible] an approval would not promote the health and safety and welfare of the city, individuals leading and owning this project have been to events and provided programming across the city for 150 years collectively. we've conducted peace rallies, buy backs, toy drives, educational workshops, and again, just to name a few. based on those developments, we ask supervisors' support of

today. [inaudible] we respectfully disagree. we have spent our entire lives promoting health, safety, and welfare. organization opposition refused to meet with us to discuss -- >> clerk: mr. president, the presenter's time has run. >> thank you. >> president walton: thank you. thank you so much to the appellant. i don't see anyone on the roster who has a response or a question for the appellant. madam clerk, we would open public comment specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. the board is hearing comments specifically in support of items 56 through 59, the hearing on the conditional use authorization disapproval of 5 leland and 2400 bayshore boulevard. i will just state this one time

for the rest of the afternoon until we get to public comment, the number is streaming on your screen. it's 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d. 146-761-9163, then pound and pound again. to be added to the speaker's queue to provide public comment specifically on this item, press star, three now. we do have interpreters who are standing by with us. i'm going to ask that they introduce themselves and the service that they provide. >> interpreter: my name is connie, and i'll be providing spanish interpretation. thank you very much. >> interpreter: good afternoon. my name is winnie chan, and

i'll be providing interpretation in the cantonese language. thank you. >> interpreter: hello. my name is anna, and i'm from the office of community affairs, and i'll be providing mandarin translation. thank you. >> interpreter: hello. my name is melani lau, and i'll be providing tagalog interpretation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i am setting the timer for two minutes. let's hear from the first caller, please. welcome, caller. >> hi. my name is raphael picazzo. i am a community member, long time resident, born and raised in san francisco. i am in total support of this

dispensary. building back the community is very important to all of us who are native to san francisco, giving back to the students, the community is very important. i walk down leland street, where this dispensary will be. i know it will bring a lot of traffic to the community and help other businesses in the community thrive. it's a good idea that we have native san franciscans taking part in a growing business. and it's about time that we let our people who are native to this city who have worked and fought hard in protecting the city, like the united players, gainor, these people risk their lives every day fighting for

justice, saving our students and our children from the streets of violence, to give them an opportunity to help our children get an education. the money goes back into the community. it will not leave the community. there are so many dispensaries in san francisco right now that are built on others who are outside of the community that are not giving back to the community. we need this in visitacion valley. it will help everybody involved, it will help the community, and it will help our city thrive and helping our natives stay in san francisco. our people want to live here and stay here, but the only way they're going to be able to do that is if they're given the opportunity to run a business, make money, and give money back to the community so we can help educate and help everybody involved. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. thank you for your comments, sir. okay.

let's hear from the next caller, please. >> yeah, hi. my name is [inaudible] delgado with living in peace here in san francisco, and we ask the supervisors to please vote yes for the appellant. [inaudible] they have been here in san francisco, her and john now, for collectively over 60 years. they are natives here. they have given their life to this community, especially there in visitacion valley. we think this is a grand opportunity for them. we have high dropout rated, and we have been affected by the covid, so we ask the board of supervisors to please vote yes for the appellants because it will give them a positive

opportunity to lift up everybody else, and thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. all right. let's hear from the next caller, please. >> hi. my name is oswald, and i'm one of the residents who are opposed to the -- >> clerk: sir, i am pausing your time. this part of public comment is specifically in support of the appellant, who actually is the project sponsor or the representative of the sponsor, so there will be an opportunity to speak against the project. we are first going to take public comment for those who are in support of the project and in support of the appeal, so -- >> okay. >> clerk: -- to get back into

line, press star, three. that'll get you right back into line, and we'll call for public comment for the other side in just a moment. okay. thank you for your patience. can we hear from the next caller, please. [please stand by]

>> it would make it more convenient for patients in the neighborhood to obtain more varieties of medicine to tree their ailments. i'm for the project, i hope you guys take that into consideration. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. let's hear from the next caller who is in support of the appellant or project sponsor.

welcome. hello caller, welcome. operations, we should go to the next caller. >> caller: good afternoon supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon and thank you for all your hard work. i'm a commissioner for the office of small business. today i'm speaking as a san francisco native. i'm in favor of this project because they dedicated themselves to the community. in the city we always talk about equity. here's our shot of true equity. real sons and daughters of san francisco that are trying to invoke their entrepreneurial

spirit so they can continue to help their community. these are not token or front minority ownership. these are real minority owners that have a vested lifelong interest in visitation and the leland corridor. i'm in full support. supporting gaynor and her team, they will give the all the money back to the team. this is true minority ownership. i thank you for your time and i hope you approve the project. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you for your comment. we have 41 listening and 8 callers in the queue. if you're one of the 41 and you like to make public implement in support -- comment in support of the appellant, please press star 3 now. let's hear from the next caller. welcome. >> caller: hello, good afternoon. i'm calling to ask you to support the appeal on this project. i believe many of the appellant before me stated very well.

i hope that, no cannabis stores cannot be isolated to one part of the city or certain neighborhoods. it should be acceptable to everyone. i really support this project, home grown leadership and investment. i urge you to support this appeal. >> clerk: welcome caller. >> caller: hi. i was born and raised in san francisco. i want to thank you, thank you supervisors for hearing the project sponsors.

the community spoke and prevented those outsiders from succeeding. now you have before you grassroot leaders who are born and raised in san francisco, bringing true value delivering their project. this is democracy. this time there's far more support that are hoping that it passes today. when you walk up leland avenue, you discover businesses are suffering. they need economic recovery and foot traffic from the dispensary

can definitely bring new light and breath of fresh air to the corridor. mayor london breed took the lead by putting measures in place to make our cities it safe. the board of supervisors have an opportunity to set a precedence and show this beautiful city and america, how the appeals works. yes vote is a vote for the right side of history. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller please. >> caller: good afternoon supervisors. i'm the director of filipino service center. we've been serving the filipino

community for the past 50 years in san francisco. i'm calling in support of the project sponsors. equity in the community is making sure those affected by the war on drugs is given opportunities like this. we have seen how cannabis businesses have made a change and really contributed back to the community. we know that's the thing for this one. this is something that we deserve and want. i believe the project sponsor made a really great effort to

addressing all the things why it was appealed. we know it will create economic development. we've seen so many cannabis businesses. it actually contributed to the community. i don't think this is going to be any different. i think it's going to be one of the most giving businesses to do that. i speak in full support and truly hope that you support it as well. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have 42 listeners and 11 callers in the queue ready to make comment. hopefully in support of the appeal or in support of the project sponsor. setting the timer for two minutes. next caller, please. >> caller: hello. i'm a resident of san francisco. i'm in full support of this project. definitely need more cannabis

for people to get their medicine in all locations. we need more stores open. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next caller please. >> caller: hello, i'm a san francisco resident. i want to say i speak in full support of this project. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller. >> caller: hi.

[speaking foreign language] >> sorry, this caller is ready for -- to oppose this project. >> clerk: okay, i will set the timer for two minutes. which you will have two minutes to interpret for the caller. >> the caller is calling to oppose to this project. >> clerk: will you please let the caller know that we will be calling public comment for the leader of the opposition to the project after we finished this particular segment of public comment in support of the appeal. >> i will interpret what the clerk said. [speaking chinese]

>> caller: [speaking chinese] >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. let's hear from the next caller please.

>> caller: hello? hi. i'm in full support of this project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let hear from the next caller. we have 43 who are listening and 7 who are in the queue active to give their public comment. this is comment specifically in support of the appeal or in support of the project sponsor. >> caller: hello, i'm a bay area

native. i'm in full support of this project. i'm in support of any small business. i think it's beneficial for the community. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. operations do we have another caller in the queue? >> caller: good afternoon supervisors. hi, i'm the executive director of violence prevention organization that's been serving city of san francisco for the last 20 years. i'm in 100% support of this project. when you talk about a project that has 100% san franciscans

that's affected by the war on drugs, you can't go wrong. when mayor ed lee was alive, that was part of the plan to save people from being displaced in san francisco. this is true equity at its best. you look at the a.p.i. population, especially the pacific i'ders, what part of the san francisco pacific islanders owned. this is an opportunity for people -- people who has been giving their life for san francisco all their life. they put their life on the line every time.

this is something that's maintained and family and people of color in san francisco. you can't beat that. that's what mayor ed lee talked about. lastly, i want to say, this business right here will keep san francisco alive. look how many people died and overlooked. so many people overlooked sunnydale. now you got an opportunity to help the people out. you will never get an opportunity like this. vote and do the right thing for the people of san francisco. the real natives of san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. operations, let's hear from the next caller who's in support of the appeal or in support of the

project sponsor. >> hi. i'm a san francisco native. i was born and raised in the sunnydale housing project. i love my community and i'm in support of this project. i known them for several years since i can remember as a baby. sunnydale left behind so much. this is a big opportunity for us from sunnydale. we lived there this whole time. we were hit by the war on drugs the hardest. to have this opportunity to own it, 100%, minority owned equity.

i support this movement. i'm a dispensary owner. i have been able to hire over 30 people. we have cameras. we make sure everyone is secure. i know that sean, he's a partner of ours, he does the same thing. we bring security. we make sure everyone is safe and happy. cannabis is medicine. there's nothing wrong when you bring cabbies and medicine, we need healing. we need cannabis. when the pandemic hit cannabis was the number one -- we were still open. that means that cannabis has always survived. it will continue to help us. there's no reason why we

shouldn't. >> clerk: we have 48 who are listening and 11 members of the public in the queue ready to speak. >> caller: hello. i'm representative of san francisco. i'm in support of this project. i was out of prison six years

ago. i'm supporting this project. [indiscernible] we really need this project to help out our people. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. operations, do we have another caller in the queue please? >> caller: good afternoon. i am representing --

[indiscernible] we ask that you support -- [indiscernible] we believe in support the community leaders who are sacrificed their life for us. this is an opportunity not just for them but for the entire population, the people of color and disparity in our city. your yes vote would mean so much. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have 47 who are in the queue listening and 10 who are ready to speak. let's hear from the next caller who's in support of the appeal and in support of the project sponsor.

>> caller: [indiscernible] >> clerk: i'm going to pause you right there. i'm going to pause you. this is for those who are in support of the project. >> caller: [indiscernible].

[voice interpreter] >> clerk: thank you all to the callers for your patience. we will continue with comments s from those speakers in support of the appeal. let's hear from the next caller please. we have 47 listening and 10 callers in the queue. welcome.

we will try to circle back to those lines that were unattended. let's go to the next caller please. >> caller: my name is sean richards, i'm founder and ceo of brother's against sons. i had the opportunity in part of an organization called the san francisco equity group. we're the first african-american approved by the planning commission to open up a dispensary. i want talk more how much i support this project and more so what that project means. i want to say this, a.p.i.

community has suffered. day in and day out, at the hospital knowing if he was going to pull through. i can recall how many african-american young men and latino men and asian men lost their lives and how they rallied around and supported all those different nationalities and races. now is the time for the board of supervisors to rally around this community that supports a.p.i. community.

i'm 1000% in support of this. i truly support this 1000%. supervisors, do the right thing and vote yes on this project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we are taking speakers who are in support of the appeal or in support of the project sponsor. operations, let's hear from the next caller. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm a project sponsor of 5801

mission street also equity ally. i'm calling in to say that i'm in support of this project and the project sponsors. the equity group that you heard before is why this equity program was created. this is their economic opportunity. they fought for it. people have died for it. you have to do the right thing and give them their piece of economic justice. this is not about people who are wealthy and the landowners. this is about a community that you just heard from. a community that just told you that they are the owners of this project. they shouldn't have to keep reliving trauma by telling the board of supervisors their

plight on what they've been fighting for. you seen what they've been fighting for. as rudy just said, this is what created, prosperity for all. i urge you to give them their prosperity that they are seeking to do for their community. this is real san francisco that you just heard on that line. this means so much for all of those folks that have put their time and effort into this. they need to have their economic opportunity. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. i believe 50 members of the public listening and 7 callers in the queue. there will be another opportunity for speakers in opposition to the appeal and in support of the opposition to the

project. let's hear from our next caller [speaking foreign language]

thank you to all the supervisors and board for this beautiful opportunity. on behalf of my people and the voice of my people, we fully support this project. we are behind it 100%. we want to make sure everyone that is a community-based project that will benefit our communities and everybody else surrounding us. we help march with and fought with and fought for. now it is our opportunity for us to have this for future generations and every other community surrounding us. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir for your comments and interpreting your own comment within the two minutes. operations, let's hear from our next caller. we have 54 who are listening and 11 callers in the queue. we are taking speakers in support of the appeal or in

support of the project. >> caller: i'm in full support of the program and the project. thank you. >> clerk: okay, thank you for your comments. do we have another caller in the queue who's in support of the appeal or the project sponsor? >> caller: hello supervisors. i'm in full support of this project.

we need this project to continue to support for these communities to flourish. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> caller: i pressed the button too early. i completely oppose the project. >> clerk: press star 3 and that will put you back in the queue. next caller please.

okay, that's unattended line. let's go to the next caller please. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm patty rodriguez. i'm a latino. i'm calling to show my full support of the project. thank you. >> clerk: next caller please.

next caller please. hello, caller, we can hear you. [indiscernible]. let's go to the next caller please. >> caller: hello. >> caller: thank you so much for your time today. i am actually a resident of district 5. i wanted to call in today as someone who's been volunteering with this particular group of equity applicants over the past four years. really lending business guidance

to navigate a very difficult process that is often very condescending and lots of loopholes and opportunity for exploitation. i can tell you that after four years of dedicating thousands of hours to helping them navigate this process, there's no group anywhere in the country who's dedicated more time to ensuring the success of cannabis equity programs. so much so that communities and cities all across the country call on them for guidance based on their lessons learned, trying to navigate the process here in san francisco. i think one thing that in a very short presentation doesn't always come through, you heard a lot about the individuals who are involved in this project. one thing should know that this particular project on leland is a culmination of all the lessons learned, navigating this process

and really putting together a strategic plan that addresses the pitfalls. >> clerk: thank you, caller. we have 56 who are listening and 7 in the queue. there may be some unattended

lines. now is the opportunity if you're one of the 56 to press star 3. otherwise, we may take this group to the very end. we are taking the final speakers who are in support of the appeal or in support of the project. let's hear from the next caller please. welcome caller. are you there?

>> sir, it is your turn. >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> caller: i've been following this equity for a long time. [indiscernible] i'm supporting them all the way. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. thank you for sticking with it. next caller please.

>> caller: hello. [indiscernible] [speaking chinese]

>> interpreter: this caller is in opposition to this appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. thank you so much ms. lai. let's hear from the next caller who is in support of the appeal or in support of the project. please begin speaking your comment. next caller. hello, caller. >> caller: hello. my name is rosa ramirez.

i'm calling in support of this project. i personally know gaynor and john for the past 30 years. they've been in my life since i was 14. this is a great opportunity to open this project in the community. i live in visitation valley. i have seen how businesses have opened and closed. i think it will be very beneficial for my community to have this. i was born and raised in san francisco. these are two deserving people that need it and should have it. they should have full ownership of this project. i'm all for it. i hope that you guys can pass this for them. we need it in our community. thank you. >> clerk: we do appreciate all the callers sticking with this remote system today. we have 59 callers who are listening and 13 callers ready

to make comment. the 13 should be in support of the appeal or in support of the project sponsor. next caller. >> caller: [speaking foreign language] i want to thank god for this opportunity. i am in full support of this project and also believe in equal opportunity and giving back to the community as well. thank you so much for your time. >> caller: thank you for your comments. we have interpreters standing by to assist anyone in language. let's hear from the next caller,

please. >> caller: [indiscernible] i'm calling in support of the project. that's it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment this afternoon. let's hear from the next caller please. >> caller: hi, i'm all for this project. it is very important that our communities are able to not only come up from the pandemic but also to the economics and get

rid of the stigma that lot of the equity applicants has had. >> clerk: next caller please. >> caller: good afternoon to the

president and supervisors of san francisco. my name is pastor sweeney williams. i am the author of the sweeney williams versus state of california, the lawsuit that we did against insufficient of textbooks and school of california and unqualified teachers and repaired classrooms in the state of california. that has been passed in 2004 and has been in the books for 17 years now. here i am again and another fight, which is asking for equity, equality for our people, pacific islanders. may be it's hard to tell the pacific islanders because we always have a in front of our

names. asians, i'm hearing, that it's sad to say that the asians are very opposed to this that is for the pacific islanders. even though it's owned by the pacific islanders, it's going to benefit every one. that's something about the pacific islanders -- also history has it that pacific islanders, there are more casualties of pacific islanders in kuwait and rack -- iraq war than any state put together in the union. i'm a 20-year vet. i retired and served this country well. i'm also a pastor in san francisco for 21 years. i ask of your support and america, is a beautiful country. we welcome every one in here to do as they want to do.

we need your support. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. do we have another caller in the queue? >> caller: hello. i'm calling in full support of this project. it will be a good opportunity for our pacific islander people. i give my full trust and support to john nau r and gaynor for this project. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have 57 who are listening and

8 callers in the queue. we are taking speakers in support of the appeal or in support of the project sponsor or the project. let's hear from the next caller. if you're unsure if it's your turn, just start speaking your comments. welcome. >> caller: hi. i'm a san francisco resident. i'm in full support of this appeal. this creates opportunity, economic leverage and to bring jobs to our community and support the people workshop -- who workthe on the ground. thank you for listening. >> clerk: thank you for your comments this afternoon. let's hear from the next caller please. >> caller: hello. i'm in 100% of this.

i believe it provides job opportunities and support all the residents and the communities. that's all. >> clerk: thank you for your comment this afternoon. we have 57 listening and 8 callers in the queue. let's hear from our next caller. we're taking speakers in support of the appeal or in support of the project sponsor. there will be another opportunity to peek if you're in opposition to the appeal or in support of the leader of the opposition to the project. >> hi. i am in support of this project. i work in an equity cannabis store at the moment. it provides tremendous amount of opportunities for everyone not just for people who are opening the business but everyone who

works for the business and i support this project. >> clerk: thank you for calling. next caller please. please start speaking your comments. we can hear you caller. we can hear you breathing. start speaking your comment. >> caller: hello. i press for the opposing -- >> clerk: press star 3, that will put you back into the listening mode. we will be taking public comment in opposition to the appeal

shortly. do we have another caller in the queue? >> caller: my name is omar. i lived in the city all my life. i want to echo what everyone else said. this is 100% community owned. this community needs healing. healing and structure. this will bring both. on top of that, it's bringing jobs to our community. i'm in 100% full support of the project. thank you and have a great day. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. do we have another caller in the queue who's in support of the appeal or in support of the project.

welcome, caller. we're getting down to the last caller. let's hear from the last caller. >> caller: hello. i'm in full support of this project. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. thank you for your patience. all right, 3 callers left in the queue. let's hear from the next caller.

>> caller: this is roger [indiscernible]. i'm in full support of the san francisco equity group project. i thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comment, sir. let's hear from the next speaker in support of the appeal or in support of the project sponsor. >> caller: hi, i'm in support of the project. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment this afternoon. let's hear from the next caller please.

>> caller: hi. i wanted to say that i'm in full support of this project. >> clerk: thank you for your comments this afternoon. do we have another caller in the queue who's in support of the appeal or in support of the project? >> caller: my name is patricia, i'm a native of san francisco. i support this project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> caller: i'm in full support of the project. i had the privilege of working with gaynor and john.

i also done work with gaynor and the community. not only is she a warrior of peace in san francisco, she's a warrior of peace throughout california. they are people for the community and by the community. a city where there's been gentrification. we need to have people in the community making money in the community for the community. i give full support. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. do we have another caller in the queue. i know we have 52 listening and two or three left in the queue.

hello, caller, are you there? >> caller: hello. hello, i work for a nonprofit here in san francisco. we help support small businesses. i want to say that i support this -- [indiscernible] i lived in bayview for a long time. i know lot of people need medicinal health. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. is there any caller in the

queue? >> caller: hi. i'm a resident of san francisco. i know that this has been an issue for a long time. a history of criminalization. supporting this type of project is just long overdue. i'm in full support of it. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> caller: hi. [indiscernible] i'm in full support of this.

>> clerk: thank you for your comment. thank you for your patience and sticking with it to provide your comment. do we have another caller on the line? we're taking comment in support of the appeal or in support of the project or the project sponsor. welcome, caller. >> caller: i'm just calling in full support of this project. i want to show my support. >> clerk: thank you. next caller, please. [indiscernible] >> caller: hi, supervisor. >> clerk: yes, welcome.

>> caller: i'm a san francisco resident and equity applicant. i'm in support of the project for sure. these guys really help us out. [please stand by]

>> president walton: i'd like to thank all of the folks that called in for public comment, and seeing no further speakers, public comment is now closed in support of the appeal and the project sponsor. and now, we will have up to ten minutes for representatives of the planning department. it looks like we have -- oh, go ahead, aaron. >> good afternoon -- sorry. good afternoon, supervisors. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. i'm joined by michael christiansen, who is going to be presenting this on behalf of the planning department, and we'll both be available for questions afterwards. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm michael christiansen and the liaison so the city -- to the city's department of

cannabis. this is a disapproval of a conditional use authorization of a cannabis business located at 5 leland avenue and 2400 bayshore boulevard. the appellant raises three main issues in their written appeal. first, that the planning commission was in error when it found that the project would cause an overconcentration of cannabis business uses in the area. and community ownership in the project has increased since the planning commission disapproval of the project and is now a majority share. in response to the first issue, the planning commission found that the proposed cannabis retail use would cause an overconcentration in the area

because the nearest two existing storefronts in the area are located at 2440 bayshore boulevard and 3015 [inaudible] boulevard. the planning code requires a 600-foot distance between retailers generally including khanna business retailers and cannabis dispensaries. although 5 leland 2400 bayshore provides an exemption from the 600 foot rule only for applications that were submitted to july 1, 2017. prior to regulations for adult use cannabis in 2018, there was no buffering between storefronts, so this project

was compliant when it was first submitted. the planning commission also must make a finding for approval under planning code section 303-w. this includes an approval of the approved cannabis retail uses in the area and the balance of other goods and services available. the planning commission considers the 68-foot distance between this project and the existing medical cannabis dispensary at 2442 bayshore boulevard and found that the project cannot meet this required finding for approval. regarding the second issue raised, that community support matches opposition, the planning commission was aware of the balance support and opposition when the decision was made to deny the conditional use authorization. at the hearing, staff noted that 478 comments in support of the project and 598 comments in opposition had been received.

many members of the public called into the hearing to express their support and opposition, and the substance and number of comments was considered as part of the hearing. further, public comment is the one fact color that the planning commission considers when considering plan conditional use authorizations. finally, the minority increase in the business has increased to a majority share. ownership structure in compliance with the equity requirements of the police code are administered by the city's office of cannabis. for the reasons stated previously, the planning department recommends that the board uphold the planning commission's decision and disapproving conditional use authorization number

2021-000603-cua. this concludes the department's presentation, and we're available for any questions. >> president walton: thank you so much, michael. i do have a couple of follow-up questions. my first question is, and i just want to make sure i heard you right, did you say the project was code compliant when first submitted? >> that's correct. >> president walton: and just for the record, how many cannabis dispensaries are there in visitacion valley right now? >> in visitacion valley, there's currently one at 2442 bayshore boulevard? >> president walton: thank you, mr. christiansen. colleagues, do i see anyone with any questions?

i don't. thank you, and now that we don't have any questions from colleagues, we will call up parties opposing the appeal to speak up to ten minutes, and i believe we have mr. russell marin. >> yes, i'm here. hello? >> president walton: thank you, mr. marine. you can go ahead. you have ten minutes to speak in opposition. >> hello? can you hear me? >> president walton: mr. marine? >> yes. >> president walton: we can hear you. >> okay. >> president walton: you have ten minutes to present your opposition. >> okay. thank you, supervisors. thank you, president walton. you asked a quick question, was it code compliant? there was no 600-foot regulation when it first was submitted, so supervisors, planning got it right after nearly five years of delays and continuances, on may 27, this project was heard before the

planning commission, and as you know, was denied. this hearing was fair. both sides had the opportunity to present their strongest arguments for and against, and the project sponsors came up short not because of an error or omission in the process. they came up short because the site could not meet the most basic threshold for approval. that's really what happened. planning got it right, they got it right, and nothing has changed since then, but everything that's happened after that fact is meant to deceive you, and i'm going to show you why they're trying to deceive you. so if you stick to the facts, this is a closed case. the commissioners got it right. they made a clear and concise determination, and nothing has changed since may 27. this new cannabis storefront would be on the same store block as an existing cannabis storefront. as you know, cannabis storefront are prohibited from being located within 600 feet

of each other, so normally, this would have been an automatic disclosure. anywhere else in the city, automatically disqualified. but because of that obscure planning code cause, this one project was allowed to have a hearing. they had the hearing, so it was fair enough. but please remember, and please note that just because they had that extension to have the hearing, that doesn't bar the planning commissioners from using all the facts relating to the situation, including the intent of the 600-foot restriction. there's one on the same block. the project sponsors got a fair hearing, and the sponsors came up short on the facts. so why are we here? because you have a right to appeal. that's the beauty of the system. you get a second look to get things right. that is good if you don't abuse the system. getting that second look doesn't mean that you're presenting a different project to a different oversight body,

which is what they're trying to do. you can't change the facts of the case just to get a win. that's what they're trying to do, and getting a second chance doesn't mean you can make things up or lie, which is what they are trying to do. this must be a review of what planning did on may 27. anything more is abuse of the system. you can't take a loss on the field of play and argue weeks later that your team, your team's loss should be overturned because you didn't put the right players on the field. they didn't put the right players on the field. they didn't come with 100% ownership on may 27. they got overturned. i'm not going to spend much time on that because that shouldn't be overturned. supervisors, at least five of you signed a document that contained a false statement. this statement said that there were no other cannabis retailers within a mile of the project site.

they said that within that document that you signed. we now know that this is 100% false. every single person on the project team, they knew this was false, and they expected you to sign this petition. this statement wasn't a mistake, it wasn't an error, they just looked at the map and got it wrong, it was a blatant misstatement of the most important fact in our opposition. people want to call it an alternate fact today, but i'm going to call it what it is: it's a lie. they took the one thing that we in the neighborhood really had a problem with, and they dismissed it with a false statement. this is not anticannabis, this is anti having two cannabis' on the store block. we have so little regard for the visitacion valley neighborhood that they're

willing to go on record with a lie and attack the foundation of our issue, a serious issue, a real issue, as demonstrated by this map, and they haven't said sorry for that. they're just going to put it out there, and nobody's going to recognize it. supervisors, i do recognize as a district supervisor, it's impossible to know all the ins and outs outside of your district, so i'm sure you didn't know about this outside of the appeal, you probably didn't know about the neighborhood's opposition, and you probably didn't know why it was denied. here's the problem. if you didn't know, if you didn't know because you signed onto that petition, you were intentionally manipulated. and i think that those who signed on, you did so in good faith, thinking that what was presented to was true.

but now you know it wasn't true. they misled to you, and they lied to you on purpose. don't reward them with your support. the second statement about the community opposition, the overwhelming community support, that confirms that the community in visitacion valley is opposed to this. again, they're trying to mislead you. the vast majority of the support is from individuals and organizations that are not within visitacion valley. anybody can support in, anybody can call in, but the support of individuals with no connection to the neighborhood should not be given an equal weight to the opposition of the people that walk, drive, shop, own, live in the neighborhood. opposition is real. we're from the neighborhood. i've been out here, born in san francisco, just like a lot of folks here. a loud piece of their appeal says this: community ownership in this project has been a dramatic -- has dramatically increased to a majority stake.

they spent a lot of time on this. they didn't put their best players on the field on may 27. this community ownership is not recognized as a defining term in the planning code. it's not a regulation. it doesn't have anything to do with control of cannabis in the city. they made it up. it's a meaningless statement. it doesn't have meaning because there's nothing to hold them to. they did it after the fact. they didn't put this team together on may 27, so now, they're trying to reput it together so they can replay the game. this is where we get the san francisco equity group part of it. planning asked them to clarify, and they said that the san francisco equity group would be given an option, an option to purchase 98% of this project if you overturn it, supervisors. if you overturn it, supervisors, there's an option to do this. somebody talk to the city attorney. is this even legal? there's no provision in the

planning code, option to sell a permit after you approve it, after it's been denied. they're trying to steam roll it, and the people, the money behind it, they've been lying to the community from the beginning. they want to steam roll the neighborhood, they want to lie to the board of supervisors, and they want to flip this business to another group. some of the same people who are in san francisco equity group are part of the project sponsors team. in closing, i want to say that there's nothing to overturn, supervisors. simply, there's nothing to overturn. if you do vote to overturn, that's hugely problematic.

you're going to go on record in voting against the residents of visitacion valley. why should we be the only neighborhood with two businesses on the same block? you'd be siding with a handful of wealthy cannabis investors. they've already proven that they're going to lie to you, and they're going to continue to lie to you. they're going to say that they'll continue to lie to the board of supervisors to get to you. don't try to negotiate on their behalf. don't try to find a solution on this. it's either yes or no. we don't want a negotiated solution at this point, so affirming, affirming findings determination has zero downside. that's what you need to do. that's the only thing you need to do. nothing has changed, and planning got it right. can you show the exhibit 4,

please? and can you tell me when that comes up, exhibit 4? and this shadow corporation -- somebody said early on, the shadow corporation, exhibit 4 -- >> clerk: exhibit 4 is being shown now. >> okay. supervisors. hopefully, everybody can see this, and this is directly from one of the project sponsor's teams, so i didn't make this up. below that, you can see a $30 million fundraiser. they have access to $30 million, and this is not a mom-and-pop corporation, this is a shadow corporation behind this. how much time do i have left? >> clerk: 26 seconds. >> 26 seconds? maybe i'll end in 20 seconds, but thank you, supervisors. this is a simple case. planning got it absolutely right. they did it. they didn't make any mistakes. they're trying to change the parameters of this after the fact, and that's not eligible.

you can't change it and come back and say hey, we want to replay the game because we lost. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much for your -- >> thank you. >> president walton: yes. thank you so much for your presentation, mr. marine. now, at this point in time, if there are no questions for mr. marine, who has presented in opposition, we will invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of this appeal to speak. >> clerk: all right. mr. president, we have 38 listening in the queue and five who are ready to provide their public comment. let's hear from the first speaker who is in opposition of the appeal and is in support of the opposition to the project. we're setting the timer for two minutes. and if you are unsure, just please start speaking your

comments. >> my name is lisa from san francisco. i am here to strongly oppose this project. it already have m.c.b. close by, [inaudible] and i don't think the community needs another one. i agree with the speaker. please don't overturn planning's determination regarding the finding of cannabis project. a new store at this location violates the 600-foot restriction between cannabis spaces. there is no reason why this project should be given an exception, and why make restriction if you are not going to follow, supervisors? [inaudible] thank you for your time, supervisors.

no m.c.b. in 5. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, and before we go on, i would like to remind the public we have interpreters on stand by to provide interpretation assistance, and i would like each of them in language to introduce themselves and the language that they're going to provide interpretation for. we'll hear from connie first. >> interpreter: good afternoon. my name is connie, and i'm with the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs, and i will be providing interpretation services in spanish language. [speaking spanish language] [end of translation]. >> thank you. >> clerk: miss lai? [speaking cantonese language]

[end of translation]. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. and miss winnie chen? okay. while miss chen is getting ready, could we have the tagalog interpreter. [speaking tagalog language] [end of translation]. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. miss winnie chen? [speaking mandarin language]

[end of translation]. >> clerk: well, thank you to all four of the interpreters for being with us this afternoon, and so operations, before we go, we'll just make an announcement that there are 37 listeners and six callers in the queue. if you are one of the 37 callers, and you'd like to provide comments to -- on behalf of the speaker in opposition to the appeal and in support of the leader of the opposition to the project, press star, three. okay. let's hear from the first caller, please. welcome, caller. >> hi. i'm going to [inaudible]. hello?

>> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> hello? >> clerk: we're happy your here. >> okay. chinese speaker. [speaking cantonese language]

>> hello, board of supervisors. i live in [inaudible] and my name is david tan. actually, i'm here in opposition to the appeal, and i am against to have another cannabis storefront on the same block in this district because in our district, you already have three m.c.d.s. i really think that it will not promote a good health for our children, and also, i heard that the m.c.d. owners that they are going to hire 27 employees. it mean that's if they -- if they are going to hire 27 employees, it means that there will be -- 27 cars will be

parking in this area, and it will increase the traffic problems for our district. so i'm hoping these concerns will erase your attention. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. thank you for the interpretation. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? >> hello? >> clerk: welcome, caller. >> hello? yes, my name is [inaudible] my family and i longtime visitacion valley residents. we totally oppose this appeal. we hope you will investigate the project from the information in this appeal document. this has no real interest to help our neighborhood grow.

we want essential services on leland avenue, but not another cannabis [inaudible] nowadays, customers can easily order on-line so there's no need for this cannabis business in visitacion valley. this project is not desirable. our visitacion valley community thanks you for voting no against this undesirable project, and also, our community is reluctant for these storefronts. if we have two cannabis in

here, it's too congested already. thank you. >> operator: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is [inaudible] and i'm opposed to this project because as many residents have already said, it's too many, and it's not have -- you know, too many marijuana stores in our neighborhood and it will cause a lot of traffic issues. and also, the marijuana business is also too close to school and church. we don't need that many now, and since on-line ordering is

convenient, they can order it on-line if they have that concern. please, supervisors, listen to our concerns and please vote no to this appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, can we have the next caller, please? >> hi. my name is theresa, and i totally oppose this organization. there is another marijuana shop [inaudible] but in visitacion valley, in this neighborhood, we oppose this project, and also, i heard -- in the beginning, i heard that there are so many organizations were saying that the ones that started this project, please,

you guys are not from visitacion valley. you guys don't speak for us. some people saying they're from district 5, and some people saying they spend 1,000 hours in this shop, and as i drive by, i don't see that, so i think they totally lied. i think the planning commission did the right thing by denying this project, and they think that the project should go to the other neighborhood. i think supervisor, the pending decision is the right decision. i'm going to phone another member of my family, and -- i'm going to hand my phone to another member of my family,

and they're going to speak, too. >> my name is [inaudible] and i oppose this business in visitacion valley -- >> clerk: we can hear you, caller. please finish. okay. thank you, caller. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? welcome, caller. okay. that must have been an unattended line. operations, let's go to the next caller. i want to just make an announcement, there are 34 listeners in the queue and five

callers who are ready to make their comment. if you are one of the five, and you are a speaker in opposition of the appeal and in support of the leader of the opposition of the project, this is your turn to make comment. if you're one of the 34, now is a good time to press star, three. miss lai, do you want to make an announcement for the individuals listening that if they'd like to make a comment, this is when they should press star, three? [speaking cantonese language] [end of translation]. >> interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: thank you, miss lai. all right. so let's hear from the next caller, please. okay. operations, you'd like us to pause for a moment? okay.

>> president walton: thank you. at this time, we're going to take a a a a a a a a a a a a aa