at maclaren park. we hope grants and money will be available to continue to improve this park to make it shine. it's a really hidden jewel. a lot of people don't know it's here. . >> chairman: good morning and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, september 20th, 2021. i am the chair of the committee, aaron peskin joined by vice chair rafael mandelman and connie chan.

your clerk is mr. victor young. do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. the board of supervisors legislative chamber committee meeting room is closed. committee members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda both channel 26, 78, 99, and sfgovtv.org are streaming the number across the screen. public comment ask available via phone by calling (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. you will be muted but in listening mode only. dial star three to be added to the speaker line.

best practices are to call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment via e-mail to the rules committee clerk at victoryoung@sfgov.org. it will be forwarded to the supervisors as part of the official file. that completes my initial comments. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. i am still waiting on some last minute amendments to item number one, so can we please call item number two out of order. >> clerk: item number two is an ordinance amending the administrative code march 31st as the annual date for registering fees at auto mated point of sales stations used for commercial purposes, retroactively eliminating fees billed by the tax collector on

or after january 1st, 2019, through fees otherwise due prior to march 31st, 2025, for each business with taxi meter devices, refunding eliminated fees paid to the city, and any penalties paid on such fees and updating administrative fees to conform with the state of california's annual device administrative fees schedule. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. colleagues, this item does two things. it cleans up the administrative code provision as it relates to how the city by and through our weights and measures function the county in this case, mr. creed morgan with the department of public health administers their job in verifying that various devices from gas pumps to jewelry

scales to taxi meters are accurate and so this does a little bit of clean-up, but more importantly as set forth in the long title read by mr. young, it puts a pause on these fees for taxi meter devices and i'll explain a little bit more why in a second, but i want to thank kate torren and her crew from the sfmta taxi shop for their work and allowing me to sponsor for these measures as well as the treasurer tax collector who's represented today by amanda freed for their collective work that's going to bring some, i think, fairness, a level playing field and relief to our by leaguered taxi

community. ms. torren is not available today as court proceedings over our taxi dime scheme are going on in the civil division across the street, but she's represented by philip crana from the sfmta. with that, i will give a very brief synopsis beforehanding it over to the aforementioned folks which is that the t.n.c. industry lyft and uber are not yet frankly measurable. their devices which are these little things are not measurable by the state and local government as to accuracy

and therefore are not being charged fees at this time and it seems to be that their counter parts not be charged for them either. in addition, the city has been trying to get everybody on a march 31st payment regimen and this ordinance does that along with some other nonsubstantive clean-ups. and good morning amanda. >> good morning, supervisor peskin. thank you for that synopsis. you always make my job easier. california pays a fee for each measuring device.

we bill and collect these fees at the department of public health. and so in an attempt to even the playing field and to be and it's actually retroactive for any fees billed after january 1st, 2019, and would last until march 31st, 2025. the city would refund any so they can be included on the

unified licensed bill. this has made it a lot easier because of all the deferrells from the board and the mayor during covid. we've pushed. please remember to pay that and the penalties were for a day late and then go up the longer you fail to pay. the ordinance also requires the scheduled fee. i know i'm joined today by creed morgan and a cloog from the sfmta and this legislation was an effort by our team offices so i'm happy to answer

any questions you might have. >> chairman: i also neglected to acknowledge lee hefner with my office. mr. morgan, i did not know you were but it sounds like you are running a tight shop. >> i think this is a great opportunity. i think it's important legislation that will go forward and kind of make a level playing field. >> thank you,, mr. morgan. is there anything left for you to say? >> on behalf of sfmta, i'd like to thank you, you supervisor

peskin for your leadership getting to this point. i'd also like to thank ms. free on this important piece of legislation. >> chairman: all right. are there questions or comments from committee members. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. you know, i think identify been i've been in city government for some time now and i would like to be a co-sponsor of the legislation. >> chairman: thank you. all right. why don't we go to public comment list and i've got to go to the meeting list. >> supervisor mandelman: thank

you, mr. chair. to look at fines and fees and the variants and some of which make a lot of sense and some don't make sense at all. and i think this is very good legislation and i would also like to be added aas a co-sponsor. >> chairman: wow. we're off to a good week. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, press star to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand.

we have three callers on the line for public comment. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> i have been watching city government meetings for 20 years and i think this discussion about taxi meters is boring. city hall meetings have really jumped lately. i don't care about this weights and measures stuff. this has nothing to do with peoples' lives. i don't know weights and measures and taxi meters and supplementals and r.s.b.s. i'm sick of this stuff. i don't really even care. and, by the way, mandelman looks like an ugly rat. >> chairman: you were doing good and by the way this does

save individual taxi drivers a significant amount of money on an annual basis. speaker number two. >> can you hear me now? >> chairman: we can hear you now. >> good morning. david pillpell. i pride myself on being up to date on the more obscure elements of our city government, but this was a little wrinkle that i did not know about so i too learned something. thanks as well to ms. freed, ms. torren, and mr. morgan and their staff for clearing this up. my only question or concern if you might direct it to staff although this is an ordinance that amends the code because there are fees that are waived currently and retroactively that would have some physical

impact and i did not see what that physical impact is. i don't oppose it, i just was wondering what that was and if you can bring that forth. otherwise, thank you very much. great work. >> chairman: thank you. i thought i was going to be able to add you as a co-sponsor this morning but with that last question, i can't add you as a co-sponsor. budget analyst deemed this to not have physical impact. next speaker, please. >> linda chapman. good start to the week i would say indeed. i'm here for a different item, but i want to thank supervisor peskin and co-sponsors for putting this forward to protect the taxi industry. i have to say, one, as a person who is now an older person and also disabled, the taxis are critical to us. yesterday, i actually had to call one to rescue me from the

wind tunnels over at van ness around pine and california and the hotel that's caused. also, i live in a neighborhood in knob will where more than two thirds of the households did not have any kind of vehicle at all and we depend on taxis a lot. you know, i believe that years ago, the city did a real disservice to the taxi industry by putting these medallions that you keep hearing about and promoting uber and lyft. i don't think i have to tell you about the kinds of harms they caused in general to their workers. think of the poor taxi drivers. you know, i'll just mention also, that as you know, those medallions were important investments for conservative investors, city workers and so fords and taxi drivers. my sister's mother-in-law

inherited two medallions from her husband and her son drove the cabs and i used to listen at coalition with san francisco neighborhoods to the woman whom you would know and came and represented the cab drivers. whatever else you can do. whatever more you can do, please do and that concludes my remarks. >> chairman: thank you, ms. chapman. are there any other members of the public here for item number two for public comment? >> clerk: there are no other members of the public waiting for public comment at this time. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. in all seriousness, as to the second speaker's question about fiscal impact in so far as this is a fee for a service and that service is not being provided. there is no fiscal impact because there's no work being done to measure the accuracy of

the device during this brief period as we figured out and the state figures out how to measure t.n.c. devices which is going to take a little while and just so that that speaker knows the amount of money collected on an annual base i've been informed is less than $200,000 per end. with that, i would like to make motion to send this item to the full board with the positive recommendation of the co-sponsors of supervisor mandelman and chan. on that, a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, [roll call] the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: mr. clerk, in so far as the third item is easy

and quick. why don't we get it out of the way, could you please read item number three. >> clerk: yes. item number three is a motion reappointing supervisor melgar term ending september 23rd, 2023, to the association of bay area government executive board regional planning committee. >> chairman: is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes. give me one moment. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please press star three to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have been unmuted. excuse me. you have been unmuted and you may begin your public comment. i believe we have two members of the public in line to speak on this item. >> chairman: first speaker,

please. >> howdy there. this is gort or binson and i'm a conservative and a concerned republican here in san francisco. i hold the appointment. she is a [inaudible] go back to mexico. >> chairman: next speaker, please. >> you can hear me okay? >> chairman: yes, we can, mr. pillpell. >> it is. david pillpell. so on this item, i have no opposition to the proposed reappointment. i am concerned that i think there's a typo here somehow. it is the association of bay area governments.

they used to be have a general assembly. they certainly have an executive board. i believe this is the appointment to the regional planning committee. so i think both in the short title and the long title, the reference to the executive board should probably be struck and this is simply the reappointment to the a.b.a.g. regional planning committee. probably not a reference to the executive board. i believe that's a separate appointment unless i'm confused. but the executive board and the regional planning committee i believe are different entities. thanks very much. >> chairman: i would refer that to legal council. are there any other members of the public for this item, number three? >> clerk: we are double checking. i believe that completes the

speakers for this item of public commentors. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. madam deputy city attorney as to the last speaker's comment on the title of this matter in any advice. >> i apologize. i didn't hear the suggested revision. could you repeat it? >> chairman: mr. clerk, you want to unmute the caller, second caller so he can repeat it. >> clerk: i can go ahead and provide a summary. mr. pillpell believes that the executive board is not should be deleted from this title as it is not the correct title. it should be association of bay area governments regional planning committee and he believes the executive board is

a different body. >> chairman: sounds correct. >> it seems like something we might want to confirm before amending to reflect that. i have no idea whether or not they're different bodies. >> chairman: i'll tell you what, why don't we send this item to the full board with recommendation and mr. clerk and madam deputy city attorney, if the title needs to be changed at the full board, we can do that accordingly then. >> okay. >> chairman: all right. on the motion to send the item as is before us a -- supervisor mandelman, something you want to say? >> supervisor mandelman: i was going to say, i think it may be a committee of the executive board even though members -- people can serve who are not on the executive board, so it is worth double checking before we make the change. >> chairman: all right.

we'll get to the bottom of that. the workings of a.b.a.g. and on the motion to present an item with the possibility of amending this after due copious research, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. [roll call] the motion is approved without opposition. >> chairman: all right. why don't we circle back around to our first and last item, item number one, please. >> clerk: yes. item number one is an ordinance amending the campaign and government kungt code to expand definition of interested party to include city contractors and persons seeking influence city

officers and combes and to prohibit appointed department heads, commissioners, and designated combes from sliting behested payments from interested parties. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. i don't know if supervisor haney has joined us or not. you'll recall that last week, we had a good and robust conversation about this and i raised a number of issues and in the intervening week have now gotten the amendments resulting from that conversation that have so everybody will have plenty of time to which is a pretty

fundamental which is that i don't think there's any reason why any city official whether they are appointed department heads or elected officials like ourselves should be able to, in essence, solicit or otherwise shake down parties who have pending contracts before those officials whether it's an elected official or an appointed official or who have a financial interest in proceedings before us or these department heads. i mean, this is not a radical concept. this is i think pretty basic anti-corruption work. and what it boils down to is who is an interested party and the way it's defined which i want to broaden a little bit is that has to be somebody with business in front of that department head, in front of this board of supervisors, so it's not anybody in the world. i mean, if you are spending

your time as the head of the library department asking third parties to contribute to friends of the library, 99.9% of the universe is still available to you, but you can't go and solicit the folks who are installing your metal detectors that just seems like common sense and frankly, this is behavior that is rarely ever engaged in and this notion that has circulated and somehow not receive funds because elected

officials won't raise money for them is demonstrably false. so long as we can distinguish between interested and noninterested parties and we can do fundraising without the corrupting influence of these interested parties i mean, this seems wrong. i can't believe that it hasn't been illegal forever, but parentally muhammad nuru has shown us we had to create a law by way of example if you look at the behested payments over the last decade, you'll see a lot of them are being raised from ecology and you'd be nuts not to consider that recology

charge friday some of those while they manage to overcharge rate payers by one$00 million over half a decade. so a have a series of amendments which i promised that i would introduce that i received from an attorney's office. regardless, theses amendments will require a one-week continuance. but back to the simple premise, no public official should be allowed to solicit or, in essence, when you're in the middle of an rs.b. process or granted a contract, it feels like and smells like a shake down from parties who have a clear interest in influencing our behavior. that's just wrong.

this is per se corruption and i don't think we should allow it at all period. so the amendments i'm introducing today should, one, as mr. ford said last week on behalf of the suggestion of the ethics commission suggest elected officials including the board of supervisors and the mayor to the same prohibition on behesting payments from interested parties as other city officials. by the way, this eliminates the filing requirement for officials which is less paper work for those of us who have previously engaged in this. you no longer will engage in it so you won't have to fill out any forms. i've included registered contact lobbyists as an interested party. i have lengthened the scope of

the what constitutes an interested party from six-month black-out period for solicitation of city contractors following the term nation of a contract. so anyway. take a look at it. let's discuss it next week. i'm happy to try to answer any questions you might have at this time, but we'll continue this item for a week. i see that supervisor chan and supervisor mandelman are on the roster. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. and i do want to quickly address some of the nonprofits and i really do agree that this legislation is one key element to good and clean government this really essentially stopped behind the scenes pay and play

culture that the entire city government really should not be having from elected officials to city department heads, but i want to clarify through our deputy city attorney anne pearson around the issues where fundraises specifically about public appeal and how that's a key element to supporting nonprofit and fundraising. >> deputy city attorney anne pearson. is your question for me to tell you a little bit more about what public appeals are in so far as they're an exception to this? >> chairman: yeah. and i actually do want to say there is actual -- there's a reference in the measure that references a specific code

section and it's important to understand that communications such as public testimony in front of the board of supervisors are not included in that, so if somebody comes and testifies for behalf of an item, that does not in any way count and i don't have, i can find the code section here, but communications that involve only routine requests for information such as publicly requested documents are made while attending general information or are made to the press and involves an action that's solely ministerial or a written public comment are exceptions. i'm sorry, madam deputy city attorney, but i meant to mention that in my comments. >> thank you, supervisor.

supervisor chan, were you also wondering about the public appeal because that is a term that's used in the legislation and that's also defined in the public code. when the request is made by a number of means. by television. radio, billboard. through a public message like social media. the distribution of a single e-mail to 200 or more recipients or made in a speech to a group of 20 or more individuals. so that's the definition of a public appeal. >> supervisor chan: and that is an exception in this legislation; correct? >> right. >> supervisor chan: all right. thank you, through the chair peskin. that's all i really want to clarify for especially some of

the concerns expressed through the nonprofits. i hope that eases some of the anxieties. again, i really believe this is a good piece of legislation for clean and good government. take away some of the pay to play culture and the behind the scene and it's good that we extend it to the i electricitied official. and thank you, chair peskin. >> chairman: thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, mr. chair. i guess i look forward to try to understand the amendments over the next week as well. if the chair could explain why.

i understand this legislation is not banning the behested payments in its entirety. it's banning from elected parties. so why would elected officials no longer be filing the behested payment filings? >> chairman: so i do want to thank patrick ford from ethics and as well as supervisor haney and his staff and deputy city attorney andrew schenn who pivoted quickly in the last week. some of the behested payments are requirements of the state law and they are then additional behested payment requirements up to $5,000 under local law, but i am personally happen to file behested payment stuff from noninterested parties at any dollar point pursuant to local and state

law, but why don't i defer to mr. ford or the city attorney for an answer to your question as it relates to noninterested parties. obviously, there would be no filing requirement for interested parties because those would be prohibited. i mean, if you were filing because you were soliciting a behested payment from interested party, you would be filing to show that you had done an illegal action. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. i think i'm just under the impression that i'm supposed to filing these behested payment filings whenever i'm whether they're urgent or not, maybe i've been misinterpreting the rules. >> chairman: why don't we get a little advice from ethics or the city attorney. mr. ford, are you available? i've always got to scroll down to see who's in this meeting.

i don't see -- deputy city attorney pearson, would you like to weigh in as to what the requirements are for behested payment files by elected officials from noninterested parties. >> my understanding is that this -- the amendments that are introduced today reflect a policy choice to remove the reporting requirements in favor of a prohibition on making requests to interested parties. >> chairman: okay. so my understanding in the conversations in the intervening week with deputy city attorney schenn is that by prohibiting elected officials from soliciting behested

payments from interested parties that obviated the sections 3.0 filing requirements, but if for elected officials, but if what you are saying is that it is a policy choice that section 3.610 can stay for solicitations from noninterested parties, i would be more than happy to keep that. this is a good conversation to have as we proceed towards next week's vote, but we can figure that out. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: and, it may be that there are also -- maybe it's just cleaner. there are state behested payment requirements and maybe the thought was rely on those and don't -- i'm not sure, but i was curious about that. i'm also curious. and i don't know but does this get into -- so imagine the scenario of a seawall or a

large infrastructure project where there is a bond measure being put before the voters and are the funds being raised for that behested payments? >> chairman: good question, supervisor mandelman. mr. ford. >> yeah. thank you, chair peskin. i probably want to understand a little more on what the facts are. >> supervisor mandelman: in the scenario, there's a campaign to save the seawall and we have to raise, you know, many millions of dollars for a campaign to do that and so the elected officials all run around and go to officials who might have a dream in their future, they might have some seawall money to be made and see if anybody will put some money in for this ballot

measure. are those behested payments? >> payments to a political committee would not be considered a behested payment under this ordinance. no. >> supervisor mandelman: and, so this really is a situation of that scenario, but with respect to the extra things you would like to get those people to pay for for the departments. >> correct. yeah. if they're not considered gifts or political contributions, if they are payments to an organization for charitable or governmental purposes, that would be considered a behested payment. >> supervisor mandelman: and what is the friends exception? >> so i have not seen the latest draft amendment, so i can't say exactly what that says. i've seen i think the previous version, so i'm a little out of date. so i think i'll wait until later to see that and talk about that. >> chairman: and, mr. ford, just so that you know, this

just happened only a few minutes ago, but you do have a copy of the latest version. >> okay. great. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. i'm sure i'll have more questions for folks going forward over the week. but thank you and thanks for trying to get this right and it's important work. so thanks again. >> through the chair, if i can answer supervisor mandelman's earlier question about behested payment reporting. i didn't quite have a link yet. but to your question about how that works, as chair peskin said, state law requires elected officials to file behested payment report for any behested payment over $5,000. it doesn't extinguish between interested parties or noninterested parties and that will remain the same, we can't change that. the local behested payment reports only apply if it's an interested party. those would fall in, what this legislation would do is you cannot engage in that behavior

anymore. but the state will always be there. >> chairman: yay. thank you, mr. ford. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you. i mean, i think because of recently run for election, i do believe with our campaign law and code is that if you're running for office or if it's a candidate controlled committee that you are not allowed to actually ask for contribution for contractors or lobbyists. the contractors actually again also have actually pending or intent to submit bids six months prior to the individual to take office and running for office. so i believe that there is already a prohibition for electives or just candidates running for office asking for contribution from contractors.

i do think that, you know, again, i mean full disclosure, i just filed a series of behest payments for our autumn moon festival and that is both meeting at the local and state requirements. however, i do believe that majority of those do not include interested parties. it's just the fact that i personally whether they are qualifying the definition of interested party or not, full disclosure and go ahead and do that, but, in essence, i think prohibiting that all together really helps to just put away some of those -- be it perception and reality to pay to play. so i just wanted to add my comments to that and thank you.

>> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. why don't we open this item number one up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item and, of course, it will be before us again a week from today, september 27th. mr. clerk. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. we currently have six callers on the line for public comment. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is charles head.

i'm the president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. we are very much in favor of everything that you are trying to do regarding to this item. personally, back in 2014, i was a member of the civil grand jury which was interested in behested payments and the civil grand jury's report that is published online at sfcivil grandjuryreports. our report was ethics in the city comments, practice, or pretense. grand jury rules prohibits me from saying anything that's not published in that report. that report became a basis for changes which are still with us today. and is very much worth reading. but, again, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods and i personally am very much in favor of the work of this

committee in this area and look forward to next week's iteration and good luck. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, my name is francisco de costa. this matter has come before the sunshine task force, the ethics commission, and the controller's office, then to the city attorney and now we see there are some method interests that are corrupt who want to circumvent and not go before the board of supervisors. but your board of supervisors haven't followed your own standards. how many times have people come before you after spending more

than $10 million and then ya'll have made mention that this should have come before you, but it did not come before you and giving a slap on the hands. today, this city is known for its corruption at every level, but what is more disgusting and despicable is that the many aids of government within the city and county of san francisco. this is a legislation, an ordinance that's going in the right direction. but we need to have some enforcement. in order to have some enforcement, we have to have the language and some booklet so that the public can read it

and understand it. as these virtual meetings [inaudible] we need it to be put in writing, some booklet as we had before so that the constituents, the taxpayers can read it and be part of the deliberation. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> bow down. this is satan. corporations should be able to give the politicians as much as they want. two people know this but london breed, i own her soul for all eternity. so, please, this is a violation of free speech. corporations should be able to give money to influence of

political process. i have spoken. bow before your dark lord and rafael mandelman is a faggot. >> chairman: you are just beyond the pail. and you keep that up -- >> [inaudible] >> chairman: this is just completely unacceptable behavior. i'm going to talk to the clerk of the board about what to do. if mr. clerk young, you can look at the number of that individual, there's just no place for that kind of behavior in this board of supervisors, in this city, and on this planet. next speaker. >> linda chapman. well, i'm not a lawyer, but i speak as a native san franciscan and the staff from five different federal departments and first, i want to concur with mr. decosta who

was a co-worker of mine for the army when we worked for the army at the pro cede al. you know, we had a government that was not known for corruption in the past. we had a charter that was specifically intended to prevent corruption. so i'm just not used to the pay to play culture that has developed in the 20th century, i mean the 21st century. when i went to work for the war on poverty in buffalo, i was astonished that people from corruption were granted and my friends from boston, it was the same thing. in the '70s and '70s i was very involved in politics. we occasionally came across efforts at pay to play, but they were initiated by developers, by project sponsors, certainly not by the planning commission or supervisors or whatever and

they were essentially what would you say, crushed. i have mentioned before how gordon schenn came before i don't know whether it was the supervisors or planning commissioners at that point because the case was before both and announced that, well, you know, we've been offered the equivalent of a million dollars if you'll approve this and we're not supporting it. you know, if you want to prove it, we'll take the money, but do you want to approve this. and to the people who did take the money, self-help for the elderly was always for sale. they would turn out a whole room full of elderly ladies who believed they were there for the purpose of chinatown. and the developer would be giving them money for trips to the golden gate park, whatever, they were ignored completely. just dismissed, they weren't

even there. when an organization from the mission agreed to take money, i think they were probably just naive about it. again, it was just not going to be part of the consideration and the lawyer tim acosta called me. either your planning commissioners are soliciting money to be given to non-profits and so on as opposed to making decisions. >> clerk: your timer has elapsed. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. and, yes, that did happen. i remember very clearly when the then president of the planning commission solicited behested payments from individuals and organizations that were practicing in front of the planning commission. it was wrong. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. this is debbie lauren.

despite some of the comments about alleged misgivings around non-profits, the vast majority of behested contributions for non-profits are of great benefit to the city and county of san francisco. we support the reform of san francisco ethics law to increase transparency and protect against corruption and we always want to work with the board in that context. ethics reform does have implications for first amendment rights, charitable giving and civic engagement and we are just urging the board to take a cautious approach and take your time to analyze the nuances and potential for unforeseen consequences in order to make sure that this legislation is right. last time this came up was whether to disclose a ban. we are especially concerned about the significant expansion of the definition of interested

parties going beyond personal benefit by saying it's anybody who attempts to influence legislation or administrative action even with the exceptions in the law, it could include a lot of grass roots public policy activities like rallies or petitions and including noninterested parties would make it even more significant. the danger is having a definition that's overly broad and vague so that it doesn't draw a clear line between what is and what is not permitted and could have a chilling effect on what is permissible and desirable fundraising and most significantly for us, we have many wonderful non-profit who serve and we want to make sure it's mitigated so it doesn't force them to choose between public service and their responsibility to their organizations through their day jobs where they need to raise

money, city organizations, and ensure donor confidentiality and thank you for considering these comments. >> chairman: yeah. i'm happy to look at those definitions with you and my staff in the intervening week, but i think the fundamental notion of interested parties contributing to folks who are at decision-making capacity during the pendency of a contract or license is a no-brainer, but i'm happy to look at those definitions and see if they need to be tightened up. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> chairman: yes. we can. >> david pillpell again. so thank you for answering my earlier questions on items two and three. the a.b.a.g. websites suggested

that supervisor mandelman and mar are on the board with supervisor ronen and on the regional planning committee. i know. >> chairman: no. >> in any event, i assume you'll straighten that out. on this matter, i look forward to the agreement and we will need clear guidance with ethics with examples and scenarios distributed to all board and commission. members, department heads, campaign consultants, lobbyists, friends of groups, political committees and i would require existing board and commission members and department heads to sign an acknowledgement form that they have received, read, and understand the new requirements. i would encourage the city attorney to update the good government guide and finally, i'm hoping that the refuge working group will meet again sometime today. that's all i have on this right now. thanks. >> chairman: thank you. are there any other members of

the public for public comment on this item number one? >> clerk: that completes our list of public comment callers. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. so, colleagues, what i think we should do is so we can have them be in the file is that we should adopt the amendments so we can discuss them next week and get public comment on them and in the intervening week, i will work with folks we have heard from and anybody that we heard from on any amendments to those amendments if necessary. so i would like to move the amendments and, of course, the underlying chief sponsor of this matter is supervisor haney who is also in receipt of these amendments. he is not on the call this morning, but i'm sure we will hear from him in the intervening week. i can talk to him because he is

not a member or a quorum of this committee and we'll endeavor to do so. on the motion, mr. clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to amend, [roll call] the motion is adopted without objection. >> chairman: all right. and, that concludes our -- >> clerk: chair [inaudible] >> chairman: i will make a motion to continue this item one week to september 27th as amended and, on that, a roll call, please, thank you, mr. young. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, [roll call] the motion passes without objection. we have one more thing that we'd like to bring up before we

adjourn. >> chairman: mr. young. >> clerk: yes. i'd like to call on our deputy director samara, she'd like to provide comment on a.b.a.g. if you don't mind. >> chairman: why don't we then re-open item number -- >> clerk: oh, yes. please do. >> chairman: well, it's up to you. >> clerk: you can re-open, but we do not need to rescind the vote or anything like. >> chairman: all right. call item number three for informational purposes. >> hi, members of the committee alisa samara the lead deputy. i would just like to clarify the comments for a previous caller about the regional planning committee. i did call a.b.a.g. and they have confirmed that is a correct title. it's a committee under the executive board. so the motion and the title is correct. >> chairman: all right. yet another example of the clerk of the board of supervisors not ever making a

mistake ever and that, thank you ms. amara, concludes the rules committee meeting for today, september 20th. we are adjourned.

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years.

[speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪]

>> you're watching quick bite, the show that has san francisco. ♪♪ ♪♪

♪♪ >> we're here at one of the many food centric districts of san francisco, the 18th street corridor which locals have affectionately dubbed the castro. a cross between castro and gastronomic. the bakery, pizza, and dolores park cafe, there is no end in sight for the mouth watering food options here. adding to the culinary delights is the family of business he which includes skylight creamery, skylight and the 18 raisin. >> skylight market has been here since 1940. it's been in the family since 1964. his father and uncle bought the market and ran it through sam taking it over in 1998.

at that point sam revamped the market. he installed a kitchen in the center of the market and really made it a place where chefs look forward to come. he created community through food. so, we designed our community as having three parts we like to draw as a triangle where it's comprised of our producers that make the food, our staff, those who sell it, and our guests who come and buy and eat the food. and we really feel that we wouldn't exist if it weren't for all three of those components who really support each other. and that's kind of what we work towards every day. >> valley creamery was opened in 2006. the two pastry chefs who started it, chris hoover and walker who is sam's wife, supplied all the pastries and

bakeries for the market. they found a space on the block to do that and the ice cream kind of came as an afterthought. they realized the desire for ice cream and we now have lines around the corner. so, that's been a huge success. in 2008, sam started 18 reasons, which is our community and event space where we do five events a week all around the idea of bringling people closer to where the food comes from and closer to each other in that process. >> 18 reasons was started almost four years ago as an educational arm of their work. and we would have dinners and a few classes and we understood there what momentum that people wanted this type of engagement and education in a way that allowed for a more in-depth conversation. we grew and now we offer -- i think we had nine, we have a series where adults learned home cooking and we did a

teacher training workshop where san francisco unified public school teachers came and learned to use cooking for the core standards. we range all over the place. we really want everyone to feel like they can be included in the conversation. a lot of organizations i think which say we're going to teach cooking or we're going to teach gardening, or we're going to get in the policy side of the food from conversation. we say all of that is connected and we want to provide a place that feels really community oriented where you can be interested in multiple of those things or one of those things and have an entree point to meet people. we want to build community and we're using food as a means to that end. >> we have a wonderful organization to be involved with obviously coming from buy right where really everyone is treated very much like family. coming into 18 reasons which even more community focused is such a treat. we have these events in the evening and we really try and bring people together. people come in in groups, meet friends that they didn't even know they had before.

our whole set up is focused on communal table. you can sit across from someone and start a conversation. we're excited about that. >> i never worked in catering or food service before. it's been really fun learning about where things are coming from, where things are served from. >> it is getting really popular. she's a wonderful teacher and i think it is a perfect match for us. it is not about home cooking. it's really about how to facilitate your ease in the kitchen so you can just cook. >> i have always loved eating food. for me, i love that it brings me into contact with so many wonderful people. ultimately all of my work that i do intersects at the place where food and community is. classes or cooking dinner for someone or writing about food. it always come down to empowering people and giving them a wonderful experience.

empower their want to be around people and all the values and reasons the commitment, community and places, we're offering a whole spectrum of offerings and other really wide range of places to show that good food is not only for wealthy people and they are super committed to accessibility and to giving people a glimpse of the beauty that really is available to all of us that sometimes we forget in our day to day running around. >> we have such a philosophical mission around bringing people together around food. it's so natural for me to come here. >> we want them to walk away feeling like they have the tools to make change in their lives. whether that change is voting on an issue in a way that they will really confident about, or that change is how to understand why it is important to support our small farmers.

each class has a different purpose, but what we hope is that when people leave here they understand how to achieve that goal and feel that they have the resources necessary to do that. >> are you inspired? maybe you want to learn how to have a patch in your backyard or cook better with fresh ingredients . or grab a quick bite with organic goodies. find out more about 18 reasons by going to 18 reasons.org and learn about buy right market and creamery by going to buy right market.com. and don't forget to check out our blog for more info on many of our episodes at sf quick bites.com. until next time, may the fork be with you. ♪♪ ♪♪ >> so chocolaty. mm. ♪♪ >> oh, this is awesome.

oh, sorry. i thought we were done rolling. ♪♪ >> my name is andrea, i work as a coordinator for the city attorney's office in san francisco. a lot of it is working with the public and trying to address their public records request and trying to get the information for their office. i double majored in political science and always tried to combine both of those majors. i ended up doing a

combination of doing a lot of communication for government. i thought it would connect both of my studies and what was i was interested in and show case some of the work that government is doing. >> i work for the transportation agency known as muni and i'm a senior work supervisor. >> i first started as a non-profit and came to san francisco and started to work and i realized i needed to work with people. this opportunity came up by way of an executive fellowship. they had a program at mta to work in workforce development type project and i definitely jumped on that. i didn't know this was something that i wanted to do. all i knew is that i wanted to help people and i wanted to empower others. >> the environment that i grew up that a lot of women were just

stay-at-home moms. it wasn't that they didn't have work, but it was cheaper to stay home and watch the kids instead of paying pricey day care centers. >> my mom came from el salvador during the civil war. she worked very hard. when she came here and limited in english, she had to do a service job. when i was born and she had other kids, it was difficult for her to work because it was more expensive for her to be able to continue to work in a job that didn't pay well instead of staying at home and being able to take care of us. >> there isn't much support or advocacy for black women to come in and help them do their jobs. there also aren't

very many role models and it can be very intimidating and sometimes you feel uncomfortable and unsure of yourself and those are the reasons exactly why you need to do it. when i first had the opportunity, i thought that's not for me. my previous role was a project manager for a biotech start up. i thought how do i go from technology to working in government. thinking i didn't know about my skills, how am i going to fit in and doing that kind of work. thinking you have to know everything is not what people expect have you, but they expect you to ask questions when you don't know and that's important. >> my mom was diagnosed with cancer. that was really difficult. she encouraged me to go to school because in case anything happened i would be able to protect myself. i wanted to be in oncology.

i thought going to school it would set me for the trajectory and prepare me for my life. >> we need the hardships to some of the things that are going to ultimately be your strength in the future. there is no way to map that out and no way to tell those things. you have to do things on your own and you have to experience and figure out life. >> you don't have to know what you are going to do for the rest of your life when you are in college or high school because there are so many things to do. i would encourage you to try to do everything that you are remotely interested. it's the best time to do it. being a young woman with so many opportunities, just go for it and try everything.

>> in november of 2016, california voters passed proposition 64. the adult use of marijuana act. san franciscans overwhelmingly approved it by nearly 75%. and the law went into effect in january of 2018. [♪♪♪] >> under california's new law, adults age 21 and over can legally possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis and grow up to six plants at home. adults in california can legally give up to 1 ounce to other adults. >> in the state of california, we passed a law that said adult consumption is legal. if you are an adult and in

possession of certain amounts, you will no longer be tried. you will not be arrested or prosecuted for that. that is changing the landscape dramatically. [♪♪♪] >> to legalization of cannabis could bring tremendous economic and social benefits to cities like san francisco. >> this industry is projected to reach $22 billion by the year 2020. and that is just a few years away. >> it can be a huge legal industry in california. i think very shortly, the actual growing of marijuana may become the biggest cash crop in the state and so you want that to be a legal tax paying cash crop, all the way down the line to a sales tax on the retail level. >> the california medical industry is a 3 billion-dollar industry last year. anticipating that multiplier as

20, 30, 50 times in the consumer marketplace once adult use is really in place, you could go ahead and apply that multiplier to revenue. it will be huge. >> when that underground economy becomes part of the regular tax paying employment economy of the bay area, it not only has a direct impact, that money has a ripple impact through the economy as well. >> it is not just about retail. it is not just about the sensor. is about manufacturing pick a lot of innovative manufacturing is happening here in san francisco in addition to other parts of the state as well as the cultivation. we should be encouraging that. >> there is a vast array of jobs that are going to be available in the newly regulated cannabis industry. you can start at the top tier which a scientist working in testing labs. scientists working at extraction companies. and you work towards

agricultural jobs. you have ones that will require less education and you look towards cannabis retail and see traditional retail jobs and you see general management jobs. those things that are similar to working at a bar restaurant or working at a retail store. >> we are offering, essentially, high paid manufacturing jobs. typical starting wage of 18-$20 an hour, almost no barrier to entry, you do not need an education. >> that means that people who do not have college educations, working-class people, will have an opportunity to have a job at cultivating cannabis plants. there's a whole wide array of job opportunities from the seedling to the sale of the cannabis. [♪♪♪] >> last year, they said 26 million people came to san francisco. >> the tourism industry continues to be very robust here and the city and county of san francisco is about a

billion-dollar industry. >> if we use a conservative cannabis user adoption rate to 15% that means 4 million tourists want that means 4 million tourists want to purchase cannabis. and we need to be ready for them. >> in 2015, as adult use legalization efforts gained momentum in california, the supervisors created the san francisco cannabis state legalization task force. this task force offered to research and advice to the supervisors, the mayor and other city departments. >> we knew that adult use legalization was coming to the ballot and stat that would bring with it a number of decisions that the city would have to make about zoning and regulation and so forth. and i decided at that time, at a know it was a great, that rather than have a fire drill after the ballot measure passes, as suspected it would, we should plan an event. so i authored a task force to

spend a year studying it and we made it a broad-based task force. >> we prepared ourselves by developing a health impact assessment and partnered that with key stakeholder discussions with washington, oregon, colorado, to really learn lessons from their experience rolling out both adult and medicinal cannabis. >> within days of the passing of the proposition, ed lee called on agencies to act decisively. >> he issued an executive order asking the department of public health, along with planning and other city departments to think through an internal working group around what we needed to do to consider writing this law. >> we collectively, i would say that was representatives from g.s.a., as well as the mayor's office, met with a lot of departments to talk through what prop 64 and the implementation of prop 64 it meant to them. >> the mayor proposed an office

of cannabis, a one-stop shop for permits allowing operators to grow and sell cannabis. >> he wanted a smart structure. he wanted a regulatory structure that ensured that kids didn't have access and community's were safe and that consumers were safe. and he wanted to ensure, more importantly, it was a regulatory structure that encouraged diversity and inclusivity. >> this is an office that will be solely charged with a duty of wanting not only the policies that we create, implementing and enforcing them, but also executing the licenses that are needed. we're talking about 20 different licenses that will put us into compliance with what is happening on the state level. >> this is a highly, highly regulated industry now, at this point. we have anywhere from 7-10 departments that will be working with these industry participants as they go through the

permitting process. that is a lot of work at a loss of coordination. we are creating a permitting process that is smart and is digital. it is much easier for the user and for community input, and is less mired in bureaucracy. >> for the first time ever in san francisco history, standalone licenses are available for all aspects of the nonretail side of the cannabis industry. now, a cultivator can go in to the department of building inspection and to the department of health and say, with this first registered and temporary license, and then what will eventually be a permanent license, this is the project, this is what i am going to do. >> very rarely in city government do we interact with industries that are asking to be regulated. these guys want to be regulated. they want to be compliant. they want to work with the city. that is rare.

>> san francisco has created a temporary licensing process so that the pre-existing operators here in san francisco can apply for a temporary state licensed. >> we have taken teams of up to 12 inspectors to inspect the facility twice a day. we have been doing that with the department of building inspection and the department of public health. and the fire department. >> it is really important for the industry to know that we are treating them like industry. like manufacturing. like coworkers pick so that is the way we are approaching this from a health and safety and a consumer protection network. this is just the way practice happens with restaurants or manufacturing facilities. >> because there are so many pieces of industry that people haven't even thought about. there are different permits for each piece. you have to set up a permitting system for growing, for manufacturing, for testing. for delivery.

for retail. you have to make sure that there is an appropriate health code. certainly the regulation of alcohol in terms of restaurants and retail it's probably a model for how this industry will be regulated as well, both on sale and consumption. >> it is completely uncharted territory. there is a blessing and a curse with that. it is exciting because we are on a new frontier, but it is very nerve-racking because there's a lot at stake. and quite frankly, being san francisco, being the state of california, people are looking to us. >> we hope that cannabis does become more of an accepted part of society in the same way that alcohol is, the same way coffee is. >> it is a very innovative fear, particularly around manufacturing. san francisco could be an epicenter. >> san francisco can be a leader here. a global leader in the cannabis movement and set a bar just to

other communities and cities and states and this nation how it is done. [♪♪♪] >> the renovation of balboa park, the oldest in the city of

san francisco, and now it is the newest part in the city of san francisco. through our partnership, and because of public investment from the two thousand eight fund, we are celebrating a renewal and an awakening of this park. we have it safer, happier, more joyous. >> 3, 2, 1, [laughter] =--[applause] >> it is a great resource for families, to have fun in the city, recreation. >> this is an amazing park. we have not revitalized it without public and private investment.

the critical piece of the process of this renovation was that it was all about the community. we reached out to everyone in this community. we love this park dearly and they all had thoughts and ideas and they wanted to bring their own creativity and their personality to bear on the design. what you see is what the community wanted. these ideas all came from the residents of this community. as a result, there is a sense of ownership, pride and responsibility that goes along with what is going to be an exciting park.

broadcasting andstreaming this hearing alive and we will receive public comments for each item on today's agenda . comments are opportunities to the during the public comment period available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 2483 394 2638. when we reach the item you're interested in commenting on, press star 3 to be added to the queue and when you hear your line has been unmute that is your indication to begin speaking. when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a china indicating your time is almost up .when your time isreached your time is up and take the next person in the queue to speak . that practice is to speak from a quiet location, speakslowly

and clearly and unmute the volume on your television or computer. president matsuda .[rollcall] >> clerk: first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items which are within the jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will beaddressed . each member may address the commission forup to 3 minutes . members of the public if you care to make general public comment this is the time to press star 3 . seeing no requests from members of the public to speak under general public comment, we will move on to department matters.

i have one department announcement. >> this is director of current planningand have a couple announcements for you guys today. i wanted to share a couple of staffing announcements to you all . we have concluded the deputy director of current planning and i'm excited to announce rich dupree has been offered and accepted the position so he will be joining the planning leadership senior leadership team and i'm excited to have his expertise especially to help support me leading the division so big congratulations to him and i just wanted to sharethat announcement with all of you at the moment we're not planning on changing how we are handling or managing any of these hearings but i wanted to share that rich will be stepping into that role . i wanted to announce we've also moved forward with a couple of

management recruitment positions and wanted to announcethat natalia has been promoted to manager . she is managing the flex team which focuses on our accessory dwelling units program which is also preservation planner so we have one more preservation planner joining ourmanagement team and then one other announcements although not preservation planner , just to round out our recruitment, we did select sylviagimenez so i know kate, you know sylvia and we're excited to have both of them joining our current planning . just to share that with commissioners here and with that i'll go ahead and turn it over to elizabeth for announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners, elizabeth hear from the planning department. at your last hearing commissioner nageswaran asked for an update on items mentioned during publiccomment at the last hearing . iemailed you on these items and

i will update you now as well as provide information on additional matters . the first item is 1525 times street. this project would demolish the existing commercial restaurant and construct a new mixed-use building utilizing the state designee. the site is currently occupied by representative diner which is only an eatery with historical cultural significance . within the eligible dolch l bg gq historical district. the existing structures five and over lighting that was located at the site in 1917. that has been heavily altered over time. the project did not include salvaging and using some of the interior and exterior features and experienced the existing signage. the sponsor will also indicate they intend to reinstate the restaurant at the construction. the project includes three improvement measures related to resources and incorporating us

a station on the amount of the design features into the new construction to allow it to look similar and maintain significance . conducting interpretive displays on site that will disclose thatnarrative as well as an off-site digital museum . commission will approve the preliminary mission on may 6 and the project onjuly 22 . on items to come before the hpc, the final negative declaration has been appealed andthe board of supervisors hearing scheduled for october 5 . the next item to sell large, that's the 380 feet place which is one of the oldest singlescreen nickelodeon movie houses. the board voted to exchange my resignation for the july and the board introduced a 90 day extension as part of the initiation resolution . which allows for the hundred 80 day review process versus a 90

day. the board transmitted the initiation to the department on august 11 which started the review for this item will be hpc at thebeginning of next year and early 2022 . i also wanted to invite you on a few landmark designation items. the tentative hearings for the golden gate valley designation have been altered slightly to accommodate the housing element october 20. and as well the department wants to continue to coordinate the administration staff for allowing for their full involvement in the landmark in process. this item is scheduled for initiation on october 6 and that's landmark designation on november 3. finally, on september 13 the board plans to use the transportation committee to consider the ordinances for two landmark

recommended for designations. the diego rivera mural developing the city at the art institute and ingleside terraces sundial park. the land-use committee continues to make, to show the building for one week so that's september 20. to provide an opportunity for the board to address concerns about accessibility and the preservation as raised by the property owner. on the committee recommends that designation of the terrace and sundial park. and that includes my update. iq. commissioners ifthere are no questions for staff , we can move on to commission matters. >> i have noreports or

announcements . >> clerk: item 3, comments and questions . >> president: i wanted to thank theplanning department and staff for sharing all the good news congratulations to rich , we've enjoyed working with you. and we really enjoy working with you in any capacity and about the efforts of our landmark designation project i think the goldengate library has been on our list for some time and i'm glad to see movement and that there's some coordination with that and on the mural, that's good news. >> commissioner matt pseudo-believed commissioner wright and norris werehave comments . >> sorry, my chat was not

working. commissioner wright. >> you'll need to unmute one of your devices. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. >> i wanted to ask about the schedule for the clay theater review and if, what is the necessity of waiting until early next year? as i understood from the last meeting the public comment, they were concerned about pushing it out too far. >> i can address that commissioners.typically the code allows for a 90 day period review. staff had asked the board at that time they were considering

the initiation for an extra 90 days or getting several board initiated memoir planning to staff capacity. so we felt that we can certainly complete but we need to do within 100 days. it's a little too to coordinate all the stuff we needto be working with . >> thank you. >> clerk: commissioner. >> i wanted to thank john for her update, we got her email and in the space. >> i think we're ready to go on to our next agenda item. >> clerk: see no further requests tospeak we can move on to item 4, election of officers .

>> maybe since there are two officers, you want to take the separately and then maybe do a vice president first and then president . how should we do this? >> clerk: it's entirely up to you commissioner johns. you can make a vote for president and vice president or we can take them up individually and we should receive nominations first. we should receive all nominations andthen vote on those . >> for president i nominate commissioner matt pseudo-vice president commissioner nageswaran. >> any other nominations. >> we have a comment from commissioner foley.>> you. so i nominate president

matsuda. she's done a fabulous job during this committee and i think she's been on the committee a long time and i appreciate her leadership on the commission. and i nominate kate black as vice president. nothing to do with commissioner nageswaran, it's about kate been around a long time.she's been on the commission. she's has a lot of seniority and the only person more senior than her is commissioner johns. so why nomination would be for president matsuda and vice president commissioner black. >> clerk: any additional nominations ? would the commissioners liketo deliberate ? seeing no requests to speak from any other commissioners, i will call thequestion given that there are 2 nominations , i take that back. >> commissioner so would you like to chair some of your

comments. >> i think we can do that here but i also want us to second whatcommissioner foley nomination . i'm sorry for the fire in here. it's nothing personal about commissioner nageswaran but it's about the opportunity and the chance to really honor commissioner black and his dedication for so many years and for hisprofessionalism throughout her career , working as her historic preservation uva and then excelling through public dependency throughout the bay area. and then deeply, deeply involved with her experience in government and assembling this commission and i think it is an honor to acknowledge her

dedication. so i would love to nominate her and also commissioner johns, i always sometimes call you supervisor johns. so same respect extended to you. having the expertise and history and the experience being on these seats, it's very paramount to our meetings. so that's actually to conclude my comment, i wanted to share and appreciate that and i've learned so much from all of yo , especially those in this commissionfor many years . beyond that knowledge on the secretaries.

>> i am allowed to make comments, aren't i? >> clerk: this is the opportunity for commissioners to make comments and we should also open up public comment. >> i think all of you for your nomination. i'mvery honored. i am interested in , i do support the nomination of commissioner nageswaran for vice president and let me share why. i have nothing against commissioner black. commissioner black has been an essential member of this commission but i am very interested in the commission and the planning department and city and county of san francisco in general and i have maybe been advocating too much but what i feel very important is social and racial equity. one of the components of promoting a social and racial

equity plan is to be able to empower younger people particularly younger people of color to position when it is possible to leadership positions and i just feel that commissioner nageswaran may not have the vast experience of commissioners black or of other commissions on this. but it's important that we look to the future and look to leaders, particularly leaders who come from communities of color to lead us into tomorrow so that is why my interest and myreasons for wanting to nominate commissioner nageswaran . commissioner nageswaran. >> so i think the way i see this rule is really to support thecommission . it's really not about me. it's about the profession and what we can bring to it and i'd

like to support president matsuda in that role if i can. and if commissioner black is vice president i'm going to support her as well. and just as far as experience, i studied architecture, i've studied classicalarchitecture for five years and lived in italy . and also just started in preservation in sanfrancisco . in1996 . so this will be my 25th year of doing architecture as a professional and the majority of it has been in preservation but i also helped build as well when i lived in santabarbara . i've seen my two times living

in san francisco and asfar as experience , i've worked on more than 100, 200 different buildings in sanfrancisco . writing history, and then doing projects, relocating them, working with teams to do tax credit projects. a variety of different aspects of preservation so it is part of who i am and i've been entrenched in it. you may not have seen me but i was there. but anyway, i support whatever the commission decides and it's all about what preservation is about and what we need to do. to move it forward and i think commissioner black would do an

extraordinary job as well. that'sall i'm going to say. thank you >> commissioner black . >> clerk: commissioner black, you are muted. >> there isn't anybody on this commission who i think cares a lot about preservation andwould do a good job, especially including commissioner nageswaran . i would be honored to serve. my life has been about historic preservation for many years. i just studied at virginia and i went to boston to learn real estate development because i wanted to know about what the developers were because the best way to preserve architecture in my opinion is to find a viable move that makes sense for everybody economically andpreserves the building at the same time . my passion is historic

architecture . and the decisions even though we are considered a smaller less important commission than the planning commission, the decisions wemake are huge . the building schedules we look at our very important. those buildings and those changes will be here for a long time. i really care about the work thatwe as a commission do . i've been honored to serve varying commissioners and they all reallyworked collaboratively as a commission . and solve problems, often quietly, sometimes amidst alone of controversy so i think we've done a good job and i would be honored to represent the commission as vice president moving forward. >>. >> president: thank you. i don't see any further

commission comment. >> clerk: members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your testimony relatedto the election ofofficers. press star 3 to be added to the queue . seeing no requests from members of the public to speak, public comment isnow closed . giventhat we have two nominations for vice president we should take up these matters separately . we have one nomination for president , for commissioner matsuda. i'll take up that matter first . on the motion to elect commissionermatsuda's president, commissioner right . [roll call vote] >> i was on mute. >> on the nomination for commissioner matsuda as president . [roll call vote] so moved

commissioners, that motion passesunanimously, 7 votes 20 . congratulations to commission president matsuda. on nominations for vice president, thefirst nomination was for commissioner nageswaran . on the nomination for commissionernageswaran to become vice president, commissioner wright . [roll call vote] so moved commissioners, that motion

passes 4 to 3 with commissioners black and so voting against. there is no reason to call the second question unless you all ... okay. congratulations commissioner nageswaran for representing the historic preservation commission in thecapacity of vice president . commissioners, we have moved on to consideration of items proposed for continuance at time of issuance and to date there are no items proposed for continuance. under your regular calendar item 5 case 2021 06308 def for the truck andnarrow , 19th avenue eastern recreation grove landmarkdesignation . are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am although i believe that supervisor mar's agent would

like to join the meeting and may make comments first but i will defer toher . >> clerk: idon't know whether z she sent an invitation . >> i see her. >> happy to make remarks, that's okay. >> i'll be very brief. thank you for considering recommendation to the trocadero clubhouse. if you've been on walk-through. [inaudible] you'll see this beautiful distinctive and beloved building among the pine trees right next to the campus theater.the trocadero has a community tribe on the west side. built in 1892 the trocadero clubhouse has been in the parkside district as a

roadhouse institution for the san francisco elite but as one writer puts it, clientele consisted of men out for a day of drinking, dining and perhaps gambling. in the decades to follow the trocadero became a rare recreational site with women's and jobs training classes and suffragette meetings. and when rosalie bought the land in 1931, she donated it to the city of san francisco to be used or recreation,music, dramatics and pageantry . since then, the now public clubhouse has been used for a wide range of events altered by the city and on a rental basis for committee meetings, weddings, birthday parades and other celebrations. it is important to look at historic landmark and through the lens ofdifferent experiences . in all parts of the city including the parkside and not just the realms of the elite

whose architecture may made the most historical of sanctions. the history of the cultural significance of the parkside with many other historically working-class neighborhoods after alston been overlooked and this really is part of the group's heritage last year and the work making it a landmark designation i just wanted to take this time to thank parkside heritage, the western neighborhood project, the park neighborhood association, sunset parkside education action committee. and i want to thank the staff for preparing this report and here's ourcommissioners to make a positive recommendation today . >> thank you. >> i will go ahead and share my screen.

thank you. good afternoon commissioners. to lala valley department staff, before you is a request for a recommendation on landmark designation of the trocadero clubhouse. the clubhouse is located within admin stern recreation grove on the east end of stern grove and pine lake park in san francisco'spark neighborhood. the building is owned and operatedby the san francisco recreational park .on january 26 , supervisor mark introduced a resolution to initiate landmark designation for the clubhouse. both the land use committee and full board ofsupervisors voted unanimously to recommend approval which became effective much 19 2021 . the clubhouse was constructed in 1892 as an in and roadhouse

by george w green junior. son of one of seven brothers in the green family. the green family had come to the san francisco from canada and were occupying land in the southof san francisco as early as 1847 . the clubhouse operated as an i and roadhouse from 1892 to 1916. and in its heyday , which you've already heard of, at the turn-of-the-century the trocadero was established as a roadhouse, cabaretand resort all rolled into one . by the 19 teams like many other roadhouse is hadfallen into disrepair . but the onset of prohibition and the loss of its liquor license was converted to a single-family residence and occupied by a longtime owner. green sold the building and

surrounding property in 1931 two rosalie stern who donated it to the city for recreational use. stern who was chair of the playground commission at that time hired architectural firm of renard maibach to restore the trocadero and to provide landscaping updates and new structures for artistic performances at the sigmund stern recreation building. followingdedication of thecity park , the trocadero served as a refreshment stop . the clubhouse is a two-story over basement building in wood chip and shingles and capped with aside gable roof . there are many characteristics that make this including gable ends ordered with deep shingles, projecting molding cornices and decorative coppola

and detailing. asdetailed in the fact sheet provided to staff , and included in your packet the trocadero clubhouse is historically significant as one of the earliest buildings in the parkside district , largely developed initially in the early 1900s but then the vast majority of development happened with tracks in the 2040s. and one of the only extent 19th century structures, the building is are so architecturally significant as an excellent and well-preserved example of architectural style and as one of the city's last examples of 19th century buildings. the building is also historically and culturally significant for associations to development recreational abilities of san francisco first is a roadhouse and out-of-town getawayand then as part of what we see in the

segments during recreation grows in the 1930s . the significance being recommended in 1892 and when the building wasconstructed to around 1949 when it was supplanted by construction . the department believes the clubhouse needs to be established eligibility requirements and that landmark status of correnti.those have been altered its physical integrity to conveyits architectural and cultural significance . the character defining features of the building include both the commuter and interior spaces and elements. the conclusion of interior signing features as warranted as these spaces which historically functioned as a publicly accepted gathering spaces had significance as a former roadhouse. the landmark that you see here was had a red outlinearound it . it's inclusive of the wood porch that wraps around the

south . no other features of the surrounding recreation including the ramp and restroom building west of the clubhouse building are subject to the planrecommendations . since packets were issued there have been several small revisions made and these were included in the revised draft that were emailed to the commissioners yesterday. and these are as follows. on stage july 5 , adding the following language.which is incorporated herein by reference and end of section 182 and on page 3, line 23 changing the sections referenced from 10042100 4.3. of the planning code. the department recommends the agency approved the recommendations for landmark designation at the clubhouse for the draft ordinance provided. the commission's recommendation

to the board of supervisors. staff has not received any public comment regarding this landmark designation but we are aware that the heritage and the san franciscoheritage are both in support of the designation . i also would like to thank these groups of these organizations with architectural resources group for their during the designation. thank you, that concludes my presentation and our questions . i believe that representative and parks department may also be on the line to make comments and answerany questions . thank you. >> that concludes staff presentation. we can move on to public comment, members of the public this is youropportunity to submit testimony by pressingáthree . you will each have two minutes and when you your linehas been

a muted ,that's her indication you can speak . >> i have spoken on the action committee, also known as the . we are in strong support for the landmark designation of the trocadero for all the reasons stated in the commissioners packet. staff has been in contact with the parks department after the water main lecture, this damage to sterling grove, the park is concerned the trocadero suffered no damage.thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, this is woody from san francisco heritage. as ms. lavallee mentioned we are invery strong support of this landmark designation . we are very excited to be partners in parkside heritage

which is a group of neighbors and interested parties in that part of town who are very excited themselves to be putting the trocadero forward. i think if you have metanybody or talked about this with anybody probably the first question you're going to get is i thought that arlo already was a landmark, isn't italready a landmark ? this feels like a slamdunk . this is an importantbuilding. i'm also a historian on road houses and this isthe most extensive roadhouse in the city . just a great landmark, great job by the staff . thank you so much for your consideration . >>. >> caller: my name is evan rosen and i live in the parkside district and and a member of parkside heritage and speak and i'm here to speak enthusiastically in support of recommending to the board of

supervisors the broken arrow clubhouse be designated a san francisco landmark. parkside heritage formed in part because of the lack of city designated landmark in the western neighborhood generally and in the parkside district in particular and we have a number of structures in parkside and the western neighborhood that are part and parcel of our neighborhood character and what makes san francisco a unique and desirable place to live and work and we can agree the trocadero is a well-preserved building in stern grove it's a great place to start in designatinglandmarks inparkside and the western neighborhood . thank you commissioners for your consideration . >> clerk: thank you. last call for public comment on this item, press star 3 to be

added to the queue seeing no additional requests to speak public comment is closedand it is now before you commissioners . >> president: commissioner foley . >> i just am sad about one thing and that is i wasn't there when it was open as a roadhouse. i think that's sad icouldn't be therefor all the fun and excitement . this is the most wonderful nomination i've heard in a year . the history is amazing . i think i can't believe it is not a historic resource alread and i am 100 percent in favor of this nomination so thank you . >> president: thankyou, commissionerblack . >> i concur with commissioner foley . this is a no-brainer. but instead of saying anything more i wanted to follow the work of bernard mayberry who when asked to rehab and renovate and build some new buildings, when he spoke about this building he said he describes it as as perfect as

he found so i couldn't agree more with bernardas well . >> iq commissioner. >> i'm super supportive of this nomination. i thought it was fun to hear the history of how people lived and would come out of downtown, what was actually san francisco then and take a day trip ora weekend trip and go to these road houses . it's just otherworldly right now but it's neat. i just have one clarification that i wanted to maybe edit and that back sheet. on page eight and one it talks about the architects being unknown and then on page 19 it says it was not architect designed.so maybe clarifying

that just to make it clear that we just don't know who the architect is for its clear that there is noarchitect . the other thing i, in reading through the materials which were extremely interesting and well-written, it came to mind an architect that did and was contemporary to the period of this roadhouse and who knows if he had anything to do with it but i thought i would mention it in case it could be confirmed or not confirmed and that's henry plus, he was a german born architect who came here and 1876 and was active as an architect from 1878 to 1910 and has like most prolific

years were 1882 1880 1890. and in the national register nominations for the bayview opera house it notes that he might have been the most prolific architect in san francisco having built hundreds of buildings so he might be a candidate for being an architect for this roadhouse but who knows. in any case i think the nomination is completely full with intent and it's great. so i just want to mention that, thank you. >> commissioner johns. >> i move that we approve the revised proposed designation which appears to me to meet all the requirements for eligibility underthe planning code .>> thank you. only thing i wanted to add miss love how is once this has gone

through the process and has come forward as a landmark designation to make sure it is on the stern row website so that you know that this is actually a recent landmark and it's a very important part of san francisco history. many people just go to the website to find out who's playing but it would be nice if they could also be educated and learn about the history of the grove and thisimportant property . so voters, i think we have a motion and a second. >> indeed we do.on that motion to adopt the recommendationfor approval, commissioner right . >> yes. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> yes. >> commissioner black.

>> commissionerjohns . [roll call vote] >> that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. on your final item of today's agenda number six, 22250 emd and 1101 through 1123, this is for for your review. please note for public comment period for the draft goes to august or is from august 18, 2021 until 5 pm october 5 2021. the draft eir is scheduled for the planning commission september 30 2021. staff is prepared to make a recommendation. the floor is yours.>> good

afternoonpresident matsuda and members of the committee . the item before you is an opportunity to approve public comment and provide comments in the draft impact report 1101 through 1103. pursuant to san francisco's procedures for implementation equal, this draft eir has a significant impact on a historic resource. the commission members present electronic copies of the draft which included an e through f5 historic background reports for this project . the public review or the proposed projects became august 18 and will continue till october 10, 2021. the department is requesting a comment on item 3 of the ea ar regarding his oracle preservation , specifically the identification of historical resources and the analysis of project impacts on historic resources and mitigation measures considered. i would like to remind the

commission that the preservation alternatives go out to the hpc february 3 for your review and comment. hpc found the alternative to be adequate that it incorporated into the weight in the draft eir. any comments you may wish to put into the apartment on the draft eir will be addressed in this production.the historic preservationcommission comments will also be provided to the planning commission prior to their hearing . which will take place october 30. my colleagues on this project, eir manager for the project, and kevin guy. members of the project sponsor team are present as well and before i go into detail i'm going to turn the presentation over to patrick mcewan with martin building code who will

give a brief presentation of the proposed project . >> are you with us?>> yes i am. >> commissionpresident, how much time do you want to provide ? >> president: how much time do you need? >> i give you less than five minutes. >> five minutes is great. >> first slide please. >> good afternoon commissioners andplanning staff, my name is patrick mcinerney . prior to the project presentation by staff i'm going to briefly highlight our company and our preservation experience . for the benefit of those parts familiar with our work i can sincerely apologize but this is

similar to the presentation we recently gave infebruary . so isthere anybody who hasn't seen it . our building company is designed to be a development firm working almost exclusively in san francisco for thepast 32 years . where dedicated to creating high-quality projects that embrace the urban fabric and its density while respecting the valuable history. part of the building company is to complete dozens of new projects over the years including the adaptive reuse of six different projects that were each ultimately listed on the national register of historic places. in addition we were the primar driver for the creation of three separate national register districts all within san francisco . next slide. again, i'll be brief because this is repetitive.we closed jesse street and created a new project and it was a nice asset

for the historicproperties . next slide. this is shots of the new plaza and the real key is what it might look like before that plaza. next slide. this is one of our projects, this is the plaza completed the first time in1999 , partial renovation and innovation in 2007 listed on the national register of historic places as a contributor tothe hales brothers national register district . next slide. those two buildings there are in the plaza, also contributors to the district and they are benefitedas well .

this plaza was renovated in the late 90s and it is also an individual listing on the national register .this is howard street, also completed in the 90s preservation and this is also listed on the national register and it is a contributor to the adjacent district, the second and howard district. next slide. this is a project we completed in los angeles also individually listed on the national register .next slide. briefly, these are districts that facilitated the creation of the 4 property districts, fifth and the market in san francisco. next slide. and then the second and howard

district which were created quite a few years ago . again, national register district. and then the south district which was created by san francisco district with a couple of years ago prior to our work, we actually moved and weresuccessful in getting it listed on the national register. next slide. this is one of our projects , the national register eligible rehabilitation but it is preservation and is article 178 townsend. next slide. and then just briefly this is the subject property, this is the way it looks today, 1101 sutter which istruly a

preservation component of our project. next slide . this is 1123 sutter which is the last use as a mortuary. next slide. and this is finally an old flyer that we dug up. when the building was originally built in101 sutter was built , it was conducted in an automobile school so it's got quite a history. in conclusion briefly i'd like to say that after literally years of evaluation and analysis, martin building company feels strongly the best program for this project is to number one prioritize the preservation and rehabilitation of 1101 sutter which will be performedin accordance with the secretary of interior standards and number two, construct an entirely new residential

building on the site 1123 . this program is now entertainment uses its significant historical resource but also maximizesthe creation of newresidential units plus market rate and affordability . thank you for your time and we look forward to any comments or questions . >> that includes staff presentations and we should move on to public comment. >> i'd like to continue the presentation with the draft eir.so as patrick mentioned, the projects at 1101 february 11, 2023 hunter street and the project site includes two buildings owned by the parking lot located just north of the center in the tenderloin district. the building of 1101 is located at sutter and market street with a three-story reinforced home auto repair building. further more there's a one-story parlor, the next is

the parking lot. moving on to discuss the historic status of the building, 1101 sutter was constructed in 1920 and was designed by shield engineering and automobile college which is atraining school . the building is operated in 1935 when it was converted into agarage . 1101 sutter is individually eligible under criteria one and three and appears since 1920. the character defining features of 1101 sutter are here with a lot of the wind among others. further west is 1123 sutter street which was a mortuary ... [inaudible] 1123 sutter is

individually eligible for register under criteria 12 and three. the features of 1123 sutter is the simple rectangle or form along with the decorative detailsthat contribute to the building . some interior spaces are also character defining and includes those exemption areas, two of the chapels and three of the rooms. based on the finding of 1101 and 1123 historic resources for purposes, i'm going to talk briefly just to highlight the project objectives which are specified here but include development, increasingly the city supply ofaffordable housing along with retaining

historical resources . so that's why i mentioned increased development includes rehabilitation of 1101 sutter for the secretary of the interior standards and the demolition of the mortuary building in the parking lot so the construction of a 14 story tall residential tower. altogether they want to construct 221 benchmarks, the draft concluded that the proposed project would result in less than two impacts on 1101 sutter street and substantial efforts to change 1123. this impact was determined to be a project level significant with what its impact due to the fact that the project that demolished the historic resource at 1123 can be retired in further construction of a two-story building. re-mitigation measures have been applied for the impact and that included the documentation interpretation along with the

preparation of the full mitigation measures which would result in the impact on historic resources, the impact on these boards are minimal. there is an unavoidable impact of the project on an individual resource the draft eir list for alternatives to the proposed project including one project alternative for full preservation alternatives and two partial preservation alternatives . the hpc shares the february 3 june 2021 hearing and the feedback has changes to all the alternatives on the ar. hpc recommended at the alternatives retain some of the interior spaces 1123 and all the alternative and hpc recommended the incorporated some differentiation from the architectural to distinguish the addition of the historic buildings from the new tower on

the parking lot.the hpc also made implementation for a partial preservation that used for retained elementsof the building, this ultimately led to partial preservation alternatives . this slide shows they found the alternatives for the proposed project and talk briefly about the new project alternatives that there would be no modifications to the resources and while there's no project alternatives in a significant level it would move to any of the project objectives. moving on to look at the full preservation alternatives in this alternative 1101 sutter street would retain and rehabilitate similar to its proposed project. 1123 sutter should be retained including the retention of some interior record defining spaces which is similar for all alternatives including a two-story addition that would be constructed with the 25

subset. on the parking lot of tower would be constructed. the design of the tower is in addition for 1123 sutter were differentiated from each other. thefull preservation alternatives would give objectives to the project and hundred 15 units would be constructed . under this alternative the impact to all historic resources would be due to the fact that all buildings would beretained and 1123 sutter has a modest addition with a setback . these measures do not apply. the partial preservation alternatives in this alternative 1101 sutter street will be. and with a four-story constructed for the setback from sutter and the larkin street. 1123 would be retained and would see a four-story addition with a setback from sutter street. [inaudible] similar to the full preservation alternatives the architecture of the tower would

be differentiated from each other. this partial preservation would see the construction of 100 52 of the on-site. given the successful additions to 1101and 1123 sutter under this alternative the impact of these resources would be significant . while the impact of sutter is greater in its alternative and theproject, the impact of 1123 as less of an exposed project even at if the impact is still significant and unavoidable . these impacts would be significant and unavoidable and mitigation measures similar to the proposed project were responsible for both buildings. lastly partial consideration alternatives under this alternative 1101 sutter would be rehabilitated and based on these commissions from the hpc 1123 would see a 12 story

addition to those setbacks that incorporate the vertical price on the part of the parking lot would be a 14 story building. this alternative would partially meet the objectives of theproject and would construct 214 new ones on the site . the impact to 1101 would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required and the impact to 1123 would still bean unavoidable with less severity than the proposed project . for this reason the same mitigation measures pertain and would apply. the following slide has reached that the environmental division is part of the process. in december of last june the separation was made up to decision-makers state and regional agencies along with property owners andoccupants within 300 feet of the proposed project . with publication of the draft the notice of availability of the draft occupants and posters

of the new proposed development project site. before i conclude i'll remind everyone that a public hearing on the draft eir of the public planning commission is scheduled for center september 30, 2021 and in order to be responded in the final eir will be submitted orally planning commission hearing or in writing to the coordinator with a proposed project. those comments can be submitted by email to the address you can see here or just to 49 south. comments must be in october 5 and in other words public commenters today will not be responded to in the eir process.after the planning commission hearing the planning department will publish a document which will contain a response to all relevant comments in the draft. legislating publication as a response to comments followed by the eir certification from

2022 . it's a reminder that the opportunity for the hpc to comment on the eir including the description and historic status of the site the proposed litigation is in a range alternative. lastly staff is here to answer anyquestions you mayhave . thank you .>> that concludes staff presentation.i'm going to mute some of these microphones here. we seem to be getting feedback. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing áthree to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been undilutedthat's her indication to begin speaking and to the chair, you have 2

minutes . >> good afternoon on behalf of thehousing action coalition , we are in strong support of this project and really think the project team for the fantastic job as it relates to the historic preservation piec . while i emphasized earlier adding much-needed housing and much-neededsubsidized affordable housing in san francisco though we are enthusiastically in support . thank you . >> clerk: last call for public comment.seeing no additional request to speak publiccomment is closed and it is now before you for your review and comment . >> president: commissioner foley.

>> i'm going to make a lot of thecomments i heard last commission meeting around this project . i've been watching this company develop projects for 20+ years living in san francisco and they've always done amazing work . i know i haven't talked to patrick in a long time but i am in support of this project and i think what they will do with this project will beeven more special than what the renderings are showing because what they've shown in all their preservation work as they go the extra mile . i'm supportive and i think it's nice to see someone who cares about preservation and building housing. i go by this site every monday with my daughter so if anybody wants to go to kumasi, you should look at this site. thank you very much. >> president: commissioner johns.

>> i second everything commissioner foley said. i don't want to sound blasi but this is a fairly typical margin company project of sensitivity and high quality. i think that the eir proposal, it's zero sin and analyzes the preservation issues and presents reasonable alternatives. the one that i prefer is preservation of alternative 2 but that is up to the board of supervisors. >> commissioner black. >> the question before us is whether or not theeir is adequate . and in addition to the four alternatives, there were many other studies and appearances from massing studiesthat they did . i recall this during the initial review the commission

with this commission in february, there was unified interest in retaining all or part of the moratorium building they have worked hard to do that . in this set of alternatives, i think they've done a really good jobof addressing that . my process is getting closer to alternative to but i want to say that i'm a little worried about the-.at this stage is not fully defined. it's the kind of element that could work really well or not work very well.so even with alternative 2, i'd like to nudge more towards the setback that they're showing in the other 2 alternatives on the 1123 building. in february there were a lot of positive comments about this development team. and i really appreciate the

hard work that they have gone through since then to develop these additional alternatives which indeed in my opinion are adequate for this draft eir. >> thank you, commissioner so. >> this is a follow-up, thank you staff and also the project sponsor and i don't know who the developer is, i'm just looking at the project and the care of the town to go into actually address some of our previous comments and thank you fordoing that. i am in full support of this project . this many versions of it, they all are really appropriate and also sensitive to our site and also our significance of our character designing features. i just am so excited and thrilled to bringmore housing to san francisco .

i like them all. thank you for doing this, this is hard work. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> it was so interesting to see all of the different renderings and it just gives you a really good perspective on the thought process of what went through. with each of these iterations and looking at, i've also similarly to commissioner black, attracted to alternative 2. for the reason of using foley's footprint of the building below it. and i also didn't like the full preservation alternative and interestingly enough, i felt

like with a smaller addition, it made sense to have a setbac . so that there wasn't a weird competition between the two story and the first story of the historic building. but once you kind of go hi, i almost prefer having to use the whole footprint because what i see an alternative 1 is that, and it's a good visual to see is that we've got these slightly moderately high additions at the top and their setback from the edges of the lower historic building but it's almost like a so from a distance, you look at it and then you realize it's wearing a hat. and i would have liked to have had it just use that whole footprint because this is

trying to maximize what it is. and i think sometimes we are a little scared in preservation to compete with the historic building but i don't think it's competing if the materials and all of that are consistent or compatible but it is behind the fagade above it. you have to have a setback to allow for drainage and all of that but i think coming to the edge can both make it compatible in a way that you may not expect. oneexample is the chronicle building on market street . the lower stories are the red brick and years ago they had put a fagade on top of that and took it off. now we see that the original

building and above dated a new addition that was multi-story but with a lighter color. when you see it from the street, i kind of gravitate and looks up at the addition for than i do the historic building. it's somewhat distracting to me so i want to wish that it was consistent with the historic building either in a color or in a form so that you kind of our drawing to the historic building itself. and the you know, there's other examples in the city but i think the adequacy of the alternatives is appropriate and i just appreciated seeing the alternatives because you really get a perspective on what's, what in preservation we look at. so thank you. >> commissioner right. >> thank you, i wanted to say

that my initial preference would be for preservation alternative one. however i appreciate commissioner black's comments on the- on the shorter mortuary building and i think the need for a little bit of setback on that building. i think the setback is kind of important for being able to read the addition. i know there's a vertical-but in just the mapping seems to feel better to me. i think that the report has done a good job of analyzing options and i also found it very interesting tolook at the various iterations .

>> i have a quick question for justin if i can. the comments that have a publi . >> i'm still in a commission hearing. >> justin, could i ask you a question? just a quick one. the comments , the colors of the comments that have come in about the proposed project particularly on the preservation alternative, could you share if there are any specific comments that weshould know about as a commission ? >> i believe as of yet we have not yetreceived any comments on the draft eir . >> i'm wondering the mortuary has been there for along time . and it does have a long story with it and it's in a location that has served a number of

different communities so i'm wondering when you would go and look at themitigation measures that can be taken into consideration . there is the building and the company and its purpose has a lot ofmeaning to many different people so i want to make sure that is captured . mortuaries, we don't really think of mortuariesas important places but it is an important thing to have in our society and our community .we are all going to leave the world one day and that particular mortuary has just had such a wide variety of constituents that i want to make sure that is captured and the voices of that community are captured. once we see a change in youth

and community we often forget about what was there. it's important to really capture what was there particularlyfor , that's my comment on that particular part of the eir. and i'm not sure if you are able to capture the comments from all the commissioners that were leading us to in any way ask any of the commissioners to help clarify. >> justin gooding, department staff. i think i have a good understanding of the general consensus of the commission. it seems that the overall consensus is that the variety of alternatives were presented at a reasonable range so that there was some discussion as to the architectural merits of some of the preservation alternatives including the minus of the partial preservation alternative 2

versus providing a setback in partial preservationalternative 1 . and then commission president maksoud's comment about ensuring that the history and significance of the funeral home is sort of adequately recorded. i think in most probably in the mitigation matters i think that's an important component and i believe that the language of the mitigation measures is addressed in a way i think encompasses a wide variety of different perspectives so i would appreciatethat input . >> i guess if there are no more questions or comments from the commission, this is my action item. it's an item to recuse information and comments regarding the eir.

>> that's correct. >> president: i think we are good. >> public comment and ifthere's no additional comments , i believe mister greely has gotten what he came for and there are no other items on today's agenda. >> thank you everyone. >> thank you. >> goodbye. >> goodbye everyone.

>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good.

♪♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪♪ >> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and

out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough. loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time.

[applause] ♪♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it

is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what

san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important. ♪♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does

entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco.

we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you

know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪♪ women's network for a

sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency

pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just

parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees

and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.org

>> this meeting will come to order. welcome to the september 20, 2021 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am joined by vice chair preston and supervisor aaron peskin. the committee clerk today. we would like to thank sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. do you have any announcements, madam clerk? >> yes, the minutes will reflect the committee members participated in this meeting remotely through video conference to the same extent as though present. public access is essential. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. channel 26, 8, 99. sfgovtv is streaming the call in on the screen. each speaker is allowed two

minutes. comments to speak during the public comment are available via phone by calling 415-655-0001. meeting ii2490770-7699. then pound and pound again. when connected you will hear the discussions you will be muted in listening mode only. bring your item of interest and dial star 3 to the speaker line. best practices call from a quiet location and turn down your television or radio. you may submit public comment with e-mail to the land use and transportation clerk. if you submit public comment via

e-mail it will be forwarded and included as part of the official file. written comments may be submitted be via us postal service. finally, items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda september 28, 2021 unless otherwise stated. madam chair. >> thank you very much, madam clerk. members of public before we begin i want to note that i am going to call item 3 out of order today. then we will return to items 1, 2, 4. please call 3 out of order. ordinance amending the plans

code to allow neighborhood serving social service. plea call 415-655-0001 now. id24907707699. pound pound. if you have not already done so, dial star 3 to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hands. when you are unmuted you may begin your comments at the public comment period. madam chair. >> thank you, supervisor peskin for introducing this item. would you like to share your remarks? >> thank you, chair melgar and thank you for calling this item out of order. i know there are a number of organizations and individuals that would like to testify on this. to start i will thank not just one community but three

communities for doing zoning changes the right way. to my knowledge, there is no opposing any aspect of this because it is the subject of a lot of community discussion and deliberation and consensus building. i want to thank and acknowledge my land use staff who took the time it takes to iron out all of these things in the chinatown mixed-use district as well as in the north east and polk street commercial district. all of that is set forth in this legislation that has been heard by the planning commission with some suggestions of very minor modifications. most of which we agree with, some of which i am ready to amend today and some of which we are waiting on technical tweaks

from the city attorney that were recommendations from the department and the commission that will be ready next week so we can hear the public testimony today and do the final vote to send it to the full board next week, maybe even as committee report. briefly, this supports legacy businesses throughout, particularly on polk street where it allows legacy businesses in certain instances to expand. it does a similar but different thing for certain types of businesses in portions of north beach neighborhood commercial financial subdistrict to allow public facing professional

offices. as to chinatown, which really is the bulk of what you see in this legislation. there are a number of changes which are designed to preserve and enhance the very important role that banquet halls have played historically and hopefully will continue to play and play in the future to give them a strong foothold as well as to encourage genuine truly chinatown community serving businesses and institutions and discourage ones that don't fit that mold. as you have seen we have received a wide set of letter the host of chinatown serving community institutions. i particularly want to thank former member of this body, maybe bell tang -- mable tang

for support. amy from chinatown community development center. center for asian-american media, chinese chamber of commerce and last but not least our former now very much missed rec and park commissioner but very much active in the community allen lowe from the perkins law firm who has provided an immeasurable of service to all of chinatown not over years and years but this piece of legislation. thank you, councilor lowe. before i turn this back over to you who have been a good partner with my office. i want to note a couple amendments i mentioned earlier. i will adopt them at the

appropriate time. i would like to read amendment on page 3 at line 13 and 15 which would replace institutional use which is defined under the code with another cody fined definition which is institutional community use. i understand that planning staff is agreeable or supportive of that change. then there are couple additional suggestions from staff we would like to take. we are not ready as they have not yet been drafted so i won't be able to make those amendments but will make them quickly next week. for public awareness and awareness of my colleagues on the committee, those are two technical corrections, one of which would subject determination of what mile marely serves chinatown

community to require the planning commission make a finding and would ensure as recommended by staff and commission that where an applicant is coming for nonconforming use that they are reestablishing the specific use. those are technical things. we hope to get into the final legislation and reiterate my thanks to all community members and organizations that supported it and reiterate my thanks to my staff lee hepner who can move on to other important projects. thank you, chair melgar and supervisor preston. >> thank you very much, supervisor peskin. we have the planning department to present this item. ms. flores, good to have you here today.

>> thank you, chair melgar. good afternoon, supervisors. planning department staff. the item before you appeared in front of the planning commission on august 26th, during which time they recommended approval with modification of said ordinance. the three recommended modifications were as follows: in division ii conditional use authorization finding when considering social service or requesting to exceed the size maximum the planning commission shall find that, a, the proposed use primarily serves chinatown. about. the request acceding the use size maximum the properria was appropriate for the use and parcel. to retain the three year period in the chinatown district and

the last recommended modification was a technical correction. that was to provide the exception to state restaurants that are a legacy business need to establish the use and associate the size it occupies nonconforming space after the three year period. as supervisor peskin mentioned, incorporating the recommended modifications including the additional first additional use authorization finding and offer the technical correction to reestablish the nonconforming use and use size and the final language for -- [ inaudible ] >> did iry?

>> yes repeat the last couple sentences. >> sorry. let me jump in to where i mentioned that supervisor peskin had read through the recommended modifications he will be looking to incorporate into the ordinance and hopefully those final amendments will be ready by next week. now, i will conclude the staff presentation. thank you for your patience. >> thank you very much. >> the second recommendation. the abandonment period. i believe it is the belief of the community that they prefer 18 months. that is one modification i am now offering. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. i wanted to say before public

comment. i am grateful to you and to mr. hepner for just doing all of this work so that the community can thrive in these changing crimes and this pandemic. not just survive but thrive to the future. thank you very much, supervisor. if there is no other comments from my colleagues, we can go ahead and take public comment, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you. we are checking for callers. if you have not done so press star 3 now. if you are on hold wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. please let us know if there are callers ready we have 30 people listening, 11 lined up to speak. first caller, please.

[ inaudible ] >> clerk: go ahead and let them speak. i will remind callers to make sure you keep comments civil. we will be cutting you off if the comments get out. >> the caller made the comment at the rules committee this morning. >> clerk: we will move on to the next caller. >> i was just about to remind you.

>> please proceed. >> good afternoon. thank you for holding the hearing today especially thank to supervisor peskin for authorizing the planning code amendment. i am mable chang community builder and community servant. interim executive director of the chinatown media collaborative. cmac dedicated to social justice and anti discrimination and chinatown recovery through arts and education. i want to say a few words. it is a very new organization. we are truly a unique cross

sector collaboration established bicycles leading non-profits with over 300 years leadership and service to the city. our area of expertise in planning, affordable housing, civil rights, art and culture and cultural equity. of the six organizations that established cmac including chinatown cdc, chinese affirmative action. chinese culture center foundation, historic society of america, champ and angel island. as a strong voice in anti asian hate and racial solidarity we are fortunate to receive a legacy gift from the state

assembly to materialize our dream. we have a unique and once in a lifetime opportunity between the state and the board of supervisors. [ inaudible ] >> good afternoon, supervisors, chair, committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am speaking on behalf of the chinatown community development center. it is an organization with chinatown, north beach and tenderloin. we serve roles neighborhood advocates and managers of affordable housing. with relation to chinatown this amends the planning code to

prohibit the retail workspace in mixed-use district. we have work with the office about encroachment of office spaces in chinatown. we support the previous ordinance and believe this new one will provide greater flexibility. it supports the legacy businesses. in addition, we very much support this allowance for social service in chinatown to exceed the use size maximums with these conditional use authorizations. this is really because it will allow development of community spaces. all of the organizations that mabel touched on. angel island, affirmative action. center for asian --

[ inaudible ] [lost connection]

>> the ordinance allows for development for abi communities. we believe that the healthy and democratic community must include all people. having arts and culture spaces with creative vitality and arts and cultural literature to lift our voice to help the city arts. we are in support of the ordinance. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you for your comment. next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors peskin and melgar. this is carlos. i think you know who i am. former executive director for

chinese newcomers and chinese home ownership san francisco. this is a very thoughtful proposed change for zoning controls. i have seen chinatown deteriorate over the past years. there is definitely life there. not just chinatown but other neighborhoods. i lived in chinatown for a very long time, 46 years in san francisco. i also work as a leasing agent in the san francisco throughout the city. i want the city to be more vibrant, have more life and the opportunities to change the life of others. especially with this cmac project that is hopefully will come through and bring vitality to the city and chinatown. i strongly support this

proposal. thank you for all the hard work on the committee and as a supervisor, too. >> next caller, please. >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of the chinese culture center. thank you for listening to the community. thank you, supervisor peskin for leadership. we support the proposed ordinance and change for the zoning controls. the nonprofit arts organization is anchor for underserved community residents to empower voices and support a broad range of artists engaged in the chinatown resiliency. it is a founding member of the

art collaborative with contemporary art at 800 grant. allowing social service to exceed the use size maximums with conditional use authorization would allow for development of important community spaces for both api and broader communities. as mentioned earlier before we join our colleagues the chinatown cultural organizations. angel island and hha and the cultural spaces are important from the banquet hall to family associations. chinatown needs support. this will allow once in a lifetime community-driven space to serve the community and build a strong arts system and rebuild the chinatown economy.

ccc supports the ordinance. thank you so much for your time. time. next caller please. there are six individuals left in the queue. >> i am with the asian pacific islander culture center. we have been advocating for asian-american equity for decades. this proposed change will allow for permanent home for artists and community activists. the chinatown community has done an amazing job for state funding for a new building. this is an historic moment for chinatown. we hope we have your support to see it happen. we strongly propose this ordinance and i want to thank

supervisor peskin and his staff for working with the community to have this happen. personal note. if i am not mys taken my first job was in the building in chinatown. it is amazing to know that this building will one day be an arts and culture hub. thank you very much. >> clerk: next caller, please. >> thank you. i am with guideline fund project to change zoning controls in chinatown and north beach and polk street. we are building sustainablen vinements. our organization has worked on air quality, food insecurity, parks and green space. the proposed ordinance is in line be with community-wide

initiatives like the master plan for the asian pacific islander cultural spaces to allowing it to exceed the maximums with conditional use authorization. we will further develop community spaces to maintain the unique character and neighborhood. this will must be passed for dreams to materialize in chinatown for social justice and racial equity through art. we strongly support the ordinance as it will generate for community spaces and support legacy businesses and support chinatown as a whole. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of

community youth center of san francisco. i support the ordinance to change small business in chinatown. over 50 years we have been providing services to diverse youth of san francisco through behavioral health, education and community engagement. we are the host of the newly renovated clubhouse to offer much needed wraparound services for youth and family and seniors. we are short of open space as families in these neighborhoods. this will be the resolution from 2020 amending the planning code for workspace in chinatown by providing greater flexibility and because in addition to supporting the restrictions to protect chinatown.

allowing social services to exceed the maximums will allow development of important community space. all six organizations are all partners of our organizations and have been providing essential services to the community for a really long time. they have received $26 million in state funding which will be inclusion for our community and for cyc, young people benefit from the cultural space expanding solidarity and the community. thank you for your support. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. next caller, please. >> thank you and good afternoon. i am ed ward director of angel

island. i am expressing support to change small business in chinatown. the immigration station foundation is primary restoring the buildings at angel island. the california historic landmark and national historic landmark. we work with the history through educational and cultural and arts. it will provide clear flexibility and support legacy business. this is crucial for social services philanthropic organizations to allow the sidewalks in the conditional use authorization. for the past 40 years the foundation worked to preserve the immigration station at angel island. with the rise that we have

witnessed it is crucial to have spaces to help bring increased visibility to the history, challenges and contributions to san francisco, california and the nation. along with the members this will not only blossom but henry vitalize -- help to revitalize chinatown to connect through education and programs to build awareness, understanding and appreciation of the asian and all communities. the foundation enthusiastically supports this ordinary. we appreciate your consideration. >> clerk: thank you. we have 41 individuals listening and three left in the queue. next caller, please. >> linda chapman from rob hill neighborhood.

for 25 years negotiated planning issues including neighborhood commercial district and the planned zoning. ad-hoc meetings during the time when lower polk neighbors turned this into an out of control entertainment district to completely resurrect the organization. we discovered the lower polk neighbors was operating under the table without knowledge of the district of anybody in the district for years. we were prevented by the covid. in the past principles and experience, we do not want adult entertainment in this district for sure. we had that deleted from the original zoning. this came in the form of massage

parlors and prostitution. when i go by operations that say they are nail salons, there are all these young men outs side and the doors open and there is a party inside. entertainment. i was concerned when the planning commission was considering massage changes. i will get back to you about that. i don't know if that piece of legislation is before you. i haven't seen it. it was concerned. it involved nob hill and chinatown, for example. there are medical offices now a concern. i don't know what you are addressing in this legislation. i will try to read it before next week. a whole medical office building in polk street in the

residential above and below retail or restaurants. >> clerk: next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor. we support to proposed amendment to the planning code. we will sending a letter of support for cmac for a wonderful recovery of chinatown. my work as manager in close contact with the merchants and long established organization. we all agree as part of the proposed amendment to the planning code you allow the simple project to locate in chinatown. the legacy business will allow the space needed to operate. we need tourists and visitors to come back to support the small businesses in chinatown.

thank you for your time. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for joining us today. next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am michelle chan. i am an attorney. the community development center. i would like to take this opportunity to reiterate a number of points that have been made and letters of support for the chinatown amendment. proposed amendment in particular will use size limits are going to be an important tool and necessary to help protect and preserve many of the small businesses and organizations that are a vital component to chinatown. many residents rely on these existing businesses. they go there to shop, eat, and rely on the services the small

businesses provide. in addition, the proposed amendments will be a crucial component to reviewtal lie chinatown and allow creative uses of space and social services community organizations and all of these uses are going to play an important role to revitalize chinatown. we urge the committee to approve the amendment. >> clerk: thank you. i believe that was the last caller. >> thank you, madam clerk. with that, public comment is now closed. colleagues can we have a motion to continue this item to the meeting on monday, september 17th? >> before we do that can i move the one previously read into the record small amendment at page 3

lines 13 and 15 replacing institutional use with institutional community use and continue the items next week for the other amendments forthcoming. i don't want to put words in the city attorney's mouth. >> my apologies. let's move that amendment first. madam clerk. >> clerk: amendment to item 3, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> i think there was another motion made by supervisor peskin that we move this to the meeting on monday, november 27th. >> the amendment passes. the motion to continue to

september 27, 2021. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> the motion passes. thank you everyone for accommodating the change of order so we will now return to the next item which is item 1. resolution authorization the accept taps and recording of avigas easement by the city and county of san francisco from smac adrian court amounts at no cost to the city and county of san francisco. >> we have diana here with the san francisco airport to present on this item.

welcome. >> good afternoon. the airport is requesting your approval to accept the easement from the developer for 265 unit multi-use residential development in northern burlinge burlin game. the land use commission conditionally approved this project pending the developer granting the easement to the city at no cost. as required by the airport plan the easement would grant the city the right in perpetuity to permit flight of aircraft above and in the vicinity of the property and to impose noise sound vibration and other effects of the aircraft and to protect the city related to

noise. i and my colleague are here to answer any questions related to this easement. we thank you for your consideration in advance. >> thank you for the presentation. it is nice to see you. >> nice to see you. >> colleagues do we have any questions or comments? >> move approval subject to public comment. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. with that let's go to public comment. madam clerk, please. >> thank you. we are checking for callers in the queue. if you have not done so press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. if you are on hold wait until you are unmuted. any callers ready? we have one caller in the queue.

[ inaudible ] >> any other callers? it looks like that finishes the speaker line for this item. >> with that public comment is now closed. colleagues do we have a motion to send this out of committee with positive recommendation. >> so moved. >> can we take roll. >> motion to move item 1 to the full board with positive recommendation. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> thank you. the motion passes. madam clerk, please call item 2. item 2. ordinance amending the planning code to designate the making of the fresco showing the building of the city in the san francisco art institute at 800 chestnut

street as landmark consistent with planning code article 10. members of the public call 415-655-0001 id24907707699. pound pound. if you have not done so press star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait for public comment. madam chair. >> thank you, madam clerk. we heard this item last week. we got the presentation at the planning department. we postponed this for a week to allow supervisor peskin to work on some amendment. supervisor, would you share with us what you have done? >> thank you, madam chair. all is well that ends well. thank you for allowing the one week continuance.

as i mentioned, we have been working with the art institute and their council on language to give them future flexibility on this landmark. not on the landmark of the mural itself but to the previous landmark 85 from decades ago. to that end i would like to thank the deputy city attorney victoria wong who suggests and i would like to make subject to public comment inserting on page 3 new subsection 7 in the findings which you and supervisor preston are in receipt of the e-mail earlier today and my staff lee hefner. the board of supervisors here by finds notwithstanding the

designation of sfai as landmark 85 pursuant to 20877 the addition of compatible entry from the gallery of the south side of the gallery to maintain public visibility of and enhance access to the fresco may be considered subject to approval of certificate by the historic preservation commission. i would like to move that on page 3 as a new subsection 7 to section 1. >> thank you so much, supervisor peskin. madam clerk, can we take public comment on this item? >> clerk: we are checking for callers in the queue. please press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted.

please let us know if there are callers ready. >> we have 28 listening and three callers in the queue. please let us know if the connection is still up. >> first caller, please. >> i am calling in regards to jsk drive about the eighth avenue access. >> this is not the right item. that is coming up next. >> next caller, please. [ inaudible ] >> please watch your comments.

we do encourage public comment. we do not accept those languages. they will not be allowed. next caller, please. >> good afternoon. dan pratton. on behalf of san francisco art institute. i would like to thank you for the one week continuance while we work things out with supervisor peskin and his aid on the proposed amendment. we appreciate the work that both of them put into this. we think that the change is going to help the art institute attract philanthropic funding for the pocket museum to showcase the fresco to make it more accessible to the public. as you heard last week, the art instituted has had a run of

financial difficulties that nearly resulted in the school closing doors forever. through the hard work of the board and administration and the generosity of the uc regents who took over the loan that was in default. they have been able to keep the doors open and are growing enrollment. the fresco in place is the key component of getting out and regaining title to the 800 chestnut property while improving public awareness. thank you, supervisor peskin for introducing the amendment which i hope your colleagues will support. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. any callers left in the queue?

>> that is the end of the queue, madam clerk. >> clerk: public comment is closed. >> i believe supervisor peskin has made a motion to adopt the amendment that he read. can we take roll on that please, madam clerk. >> clerk: on the motion to amend item 2. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> the item to be sent to the board with a positive recommendation. >> thank you. we will take roll on that, please. >> the motion to send item 2 as amended. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar.

>> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> that motion passes. now for folks who are just joining us. we took item 3 out of order. we already heard it on the agenda. we will now go to item 4. please call item 4. >> clerk: resolution calling for the creation of "beach to bay" car-free connection and urging the recreation and park department and municipal transportation agency to improve park accessibility and create equitable access to the golden gate park. to comment call 415-655-0001. meeting id2490 770 7699.

pound, pound. please press star 3 to speak. wait until public comment for this item and you are unmuted. madam chair. >> thank you. colleagues we have been getting so much correspondence from the public how important accessible transit and multi-functional space is to those in san francisco. i am happy to welcome supervisor co n nie to the land use and transportation committee today and invite her to speak and provide her remarks. welcome, supervisor chan. >> thank you, chair melgar. i appreciate the opportunity to speak on this item today. it is a privilege of mine to be able to introduce and present you the resolution. i think only colleagues on the board right now that has worked

on this much longer than i have is supervisor peskin. i appreciate and thank him for his could sponsor ship of this resolution. this goes back to referencing the 2005 resolution by then supervisor aaron peskin that it needs the management has been a issue and debate. even then this is very interesting. the aid to sophie maxwell. supervisor now jake also legislate the resolution in 2007

to start closures on saturdays on jfk drive from april to september. i was aid to the land use chair who was able to get the legislation through. chief of staff to then mayor gavin newsom was general manager. it is interesting to come back to this. this debate has long since preceded all of us starting in 1969. the eastern half was closed every sunday. it is a long time. in 1998, the golden gate plaster plan was adopted.

long-term vision for circulation plan to minimize cars and traffic throughout the park. then in 1998, there was prop j. the golden gate park revitalization act for the authority to oversee construction of the garage. today i see that as a key element to problem solving to some of the issues we face on jfk. as we know, in 2002 competing measures, prop g and f to close jfk drive to clark on saturday. both failed. we know this is going on for some time now. now in 2020. the covid 19 pandemic jfk drive was closed to cars.

24/7. an additional roads were closed to cars to allow a car free stretch if east to west in the park creating what this resolution calls for the beach to bay car free pathway. this ises what we have done at county transportation authority for the golden gate park sustainable travel study and the working group. this was created by supervisor fewer. the study addressed the need for park improvements, way finding and maps. more accessible shuttle, improve public transportation and safety improvements. it addresses the music concourse garage or golden gate park

underground garage which is key to the accessibility issues. to provide free parking for visitors with ada cards and residents in historically low income underserved community by bayview and hunters point and chinatown. not just the fact that the lack of direct public transit access or with the limited public transit access they got to come to golden gate park. it asks f m.t.a. for feasibility and access management on eighth avenue. everybody has to go through into the park for any traffic dropoff. right now what we really think

about is that if we are honest about accessibility into the area we know there is a parking lot behind the band shell. now i

i would like to thank the department and stakeholders and the sustainable travel working group. this is a good time for me to reoffer the amendments. >> whatever you would like, supervisor chan. if you read the amendment in right now. public comments can provide comments to amendments. >> thank you for indulging me

with the comments. we know there are a lot of issues. we also welcome a lot of feedback. we think the language that exists in the resolution needs clarified. we appreciate the feedback. that has been our intent and consistent with the resolution. page 1, line 17. striking out recreation and park department. insert jake 070489. giving credit where credit is due. also insert clause on page 1 between 19 and 20. whereas in 2005 the board of supervisors passed resolution in

file 51297 approving the plan which prohibited the use of music concourse for automobile traffic. page 4 line 11 after s.f.m.t.a. insert rec and parks department. that is again clarifying. page 5 line 7. insert such as park shuttle staff parking availability for the garage. line 5 page 5 line 11 strike improve and insert accessible affordable timely, reliable. page 5 line 20. lincoln way insert. [ inaudible ] after 18 to 40th avenue

restoration of 21 hayes which provides western addition to golden gate park and eighth avenue and fulton on the weekend. thanks to supervisor preston to make sure public transit into golden gate park. we appreciate that. page 6 line 4. insert 94108. because we recognize the fact that is the zip code that is including the good portion of chinatown. that is where that zip code goes to. page 6 line 8 after golden gate park such as providing direct designated weekend public transit to the