>> president walton: good afternoon. welcome to the september 28, 2021 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> thank you. >> supervisor chan: present. >> supervisor haney: present. >> supervisor mandelman: present. >> supervisor mar: present. >> supervisor melgar: present. >> supervisor peskin: present.

>> supervisor preston: present. >> supervisor ronen: present. >> supervisor safai: present. >> supervisor stefani: present. >> supervisor walton: present. >> mr. president, all members are present. >> president walton: thank you. the san francisco board of supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their tradition, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as caretakers of this place. as well as all people who reside in their traditional territory. as guests we recognize that we benefit from living and working

on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives the ramaytush ohlone and by affirming their rights as first peoples. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. on behalf of the board of supervisors, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgovtv. today we have kelowna mendoza to record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. madame clerk, any

communications? >> yes, mr. president. this meeting is accessible remotely to the public seeking to monitor the proceedings via cable cast on sfgovtv channel 26 or by viewing the live stream sfgovtv. the most efficient method to participate and provide up to two minutes of public comment is to listen from your touch phone connected to the call in system where with you ill be in live sink to provide -- live sync to provide comment. the number is on your screen. 1-415-655-0001. and when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d., that is 24841795536. you'll press pound twice. once you hear the discussion, you'll know you have joined the meeting as a listener and you will be muted. but once you're ready to provide public comment, press star 3 and listen carefully for the prompt that you have been unmuted and begin speaking your comments.

there are two special orders at 3:00 p.m. with respect to general public comment once item 42 is called, you are permitted to speak to the matters within the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors but not on the agenda today. and the hosting items that are not heard in committee, items 43 through 50, all other agenda content has had the required public comment fulfilled at committee. board of supervisors will accept your written correspondence by u.s. mail and e-mail. if you're sending by mail use the address board of supervisors, 1 goodlett carlton b place. if using e-mail use. in the partnership with office of civic engagement,

interpretation assistance will be provided to assist speakers with their language needs beginning with the 3:00 p.m. appeal. at that time we will have the interpret is introduce themselves and the service they provide to the public. finally, if the public, if you are experiencing any issues or any trouble connecting to this meeting remotely, we have a live person standing by in the clerk's office. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. just a friendly reminder, colleagues, please remember to mute your microphones when you're not speaking. madame clerk, i believe we're at our consent agenda, items 1 through 14. >> clerk: yes, items 1 through 14 are on consent. these items are considered to be routine, however, if a member objects an item may be removed and considered separately. >> president walton: thank you. i see supervisor peskin on the

roster. >> supervisor peskin: sever item 9, please. >> president walton: thank you. and seeing no one else, madame clerk, please call the roll for all items except item 9. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: nooi. -- aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading. or finally passed and the resolutions are adopted unanimously.

madame clerk, please call item 9. >> resolution to approve the settlement of unlitigated claim of the san francisco bay regional water control board against the city related to wet weather related overflows from the city's combined sewer system, no formal claim has been filed, the settlement however involves entry of a stipulated enforcement order requiring the city to implement flood control projects in the wawona area, follow some area and lower alemany area and response actions. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. colleagues, first of all, i would like this thank the san francisco bay regional water quality control board for getting the san francisco public utilities commission to finally address something that has been going on for way too long with regard to the overflows from the city's sewer system and the

three aforementioned areas. but i wanted to hear from the puc, because this is an ambitious, over half a billion dollar project, that has to be -- all three projects have to be completed no later than march 31, 2028. so i thought it would be appropriate to hear from the puc as to their plans to finally address this issue and what sources of funding they have so we can get that on the record so this and future boards can hold them accountable. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor peskin. and i am looking for the representative. >> mr. president, it's gregory mow bury. i believe you're on mute. >> thank you very much.

you'd think we'd know better. i serve as the assistant general manager for the waste water enterprise at the san francisco public utilities commission. and the three projects that are included in this agreement with the state are all projects that serve the storm water and the combined system for the city. those are under the waste water enterprises overall management and responsibility. so i'll speak to the concerns with the overall ability to deliver briefly and then be happy to answer any questions. so for a quick background, all three of these projects have been in the wastewater enterprise capital program planning for well over five years. in each case, breaking them down, to give you a quick status, the wawona project is already under construction at this point. that started earlier this

calendar year. and is expected to wrap up in 2024. the other two projects, the folsom is the next farthest along. little further along than the 30% design, so it's in final design. and the lower alemany project is in the earliest stages of development. and correspondingly, it has the most allowance in the schedule for refinement of that project. the last two projects, lower alemany and folsom 17 are fairly system in concept and in terms of major construction activities. they are both large tunnelling projects which would involve the street locations where

construction access shafts would be built and then tunnel boring machine would be used for the majority of the construction. so that's as opposed to what you typically see with the large open cut construction projects that obviously can be very much more disruptive. in the case of the folsom 17th area, the design so far, you know, the project is progressing well. the two main challenges we're seeing are, one, securing, of course, the necessary real estate for the staging sites and for the pits. and the second one is that we're working closely with cal tran on the congested nature of the corridor even when you're fairly deep underground for the tunnelling due to some of the

freeway features at the eastern end of the project so to speak. so those are both clear risks that are both being addressed, you know, as the project progresseses. and again for the lower alemany project, it has the somewhat unique characteristic in the agreement that from the time that the agreement is finalized, which we anticipate will be approximately december of this calendar year, the city will have a one year to continue evaluating alternatives to achieve the same flood resiliency benefits in that area and bring that to the board for consideration at that time. and so there is some flexibility in there, if there are alternatives identified. otherwise, the essentially default direction is the tunnel project. again, construction concepts similar to what i just described for the folsom 17.

funding for all three projects is largely, again, reflected in our financial planning. the wawona project has committed funding and we have a new -- what we call a water infrastructure financing innovation act, if you're familiar with that. that's our source of very low cost federal funding that puc has been fairly successful in securing up to this date for our major projects. and all three of these projects are in our most recent with the application which we expect to hear results -- or initial results in about the next two months. if we are successful with the which havia loans, those will be low cost financing solutions for the projects. typically, those are issued at about 2.5% interest right now compared to about 4% for

traditional revenue bonds. so i'm going to stop there. those are some of the main items we're tracking in terms of the understandable concerns with deliverability. and be happy to answer any questions at this point. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> president walton: thank you. madame clerk, i believe unless there is anyone else on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call? and without any objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. oh, i'm sorry. thank you so much. madame clerk, please call the roll, item number 9. >> thank you, supervisor. on item 9 -- >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye.

>> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. and on item 9, supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. without objection, this resolution passes and is adopted unanimously with the return of my friend supervisor safai. madame clerk, please call item 15. ordinance to amend the planning code to designate ingleside aces sundial as a landmark and to make the appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you so much. >> supervisor melgar: thank you,

president. i, unfortunately, have to recuse myself from this item as i live a few feet from this landmark. >> president walton: thank you so much. we'll entertain a motion seconded by supervisor stefani. please call the role. >> on the motion to excuse supervisor melgar? >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. and without objection, supervisor melgar is excused from item 15. seeing no one on the roster,

madame clerk, please call the roll for item 15. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. with supervisor melgar excused. welcome back, supervisor melgar. madame clerk, please call item 16. >> item 16 is ordinance to old the administrative code to prohibit landlords from evicting residential tenants for nonpayment of rent that came due between october 1 and december 31 of 2021 and make the

appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. please call the roll. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 17. >> item 17 is ordinance to amend the administrative code to require the police department to consult with the district attorney on all juvenile delinquency cases under california welfare and

institutions code section 651 and to provide the d.a. the opportunity to commence proceedings in the juvenile delinquency court in the san francisco superior court. on item 17, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. -- >> supervisor stefani: no. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. there are 10 ayes and one no with supervisor stefani in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you, this ordinance is finally passed with a 10-1 vote. madame clerk, please call item 18.

ordinance to authorize the sfmta to set parking rates at the kezar stadium parking lot and golden gate park underground facility in accordance with the park code provisions, rate-setting on property to make conforming ed it's to the park code, increasing parking rates for the berth holders at the marina small craft harbor and affirm the determination. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i was going to suggest after consulting with deputy city attorney about the ability for the board of supervisors to maintain some oversight to amend the subject ordinance at page 5, line 3, by adding the words at the end of that sentence "and the board of supervisors in section 6.10, which would

subject approval of the mta's penalty scheme to board of supervisors' approval as well as recreation and parks approval. so i would like to offer that amendment. >> president walton: thank you, do we have a second to the amendment. seconded by supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton. colleagues, i also wanted to -- well, thanks to supervisor safai as our vice chair of the budget committee. i want to let you know that we have asked to duplicate this very file and table at budget committee because it also discussed the parking fees for golden gate, parking garage and we're working with to figure out the resolution passed last week around the golden gate parking

garage. how can we achieve equitable access by providing four hours free parking in the garage, and those who have low-income as well disabilities. we're working on that and i want to make sure you're aware of that, it has a duplicated file awaiting for us as well. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor chan. madame clerk, on the motion to amend made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor chan. >> mr. chan -- >> i believe supervisor -- >> point of order. can you reiterate the amendment, please? and if i may, through the president -- >> president walton: definitely. that's not a point of order. it's a point of information. let me address supervisor peskin since you reminded me. >> supervisor peskin: president

walton, colleagues, if we could continue this item until later in today's meeting, the city attorney office is still conferring amongst the deputy city attorney, so i would like to prior to making the amendment ask that we return to this item number 18 later in today's meeting. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: just a point of confusion [laughter]. do we have a copy of the amendment? has that been sent? >> it is four words. it's in section 6.10 through supervisor walton to supervisor safai, at the top of page 5, line 3, at the end of line 3, where it says recreation and parks commission, to add the words "and the board of supervisors". maybe that's five words. so, in other words, that the sf

-- what do you call them now -- the m.t.a., they're position of fines and penalties would be subject not only to the recreation and parks department but also this board of supervisors. the amendment is to add the words at the end of that sentence and the board of supervisors. >> through the chair, is there -- did you give your reasoning behind that? sorry i missed that. >> supervisor peskin: my reasoning is i would like the board to maintain oversight over these penalties and fee increases and we would have the ability in the future to say yes or no as we do to many, many fees that come through the budget, that come separately. i want to retain this in the future boards oversight over that, but i still need to wait for the city attorney to talk amongst themselves. >> okay. i do have a question then for the city attorney, because we've had a lot of these conversations

in committee. i know when it comes to the sfmta in terms of their oversight and authority, when we're handing that authority over to the sfmta, whatever it may be, they have their own governance structure and they're governed by a -- this is the -- supervisor, i'm sorry. i understand you probably know as well, but i wanted to hear what the city attorney had to say. if we do add this, is it -- is there any conflict in the charter with regard to the oversight authority that sfmta retains in terms of setting fees? i know there is a provision in the charter that allows us some control as the board of supervisors, but i'm interested to hear what the city attorney's office has to say about that. >> deputy city attorney? >> ann pierson. as you know, under the charter, the m.t.a. has inclusive authority over city streets, but it does not extend to those in the park. those are in the jurisdiction

over the park commission and the board of supervisors. the question here concerns penalties, not fees. and we're looking at the question of who may set those penalties. i think in this language the board is delegating that to the m.t.a., as well as the process of setting fees, but supervisor peskin is purporting to maintain some control over that. we'll be looking at and that will advise if we can approve later in the meeting. >> thank you. through the chair, supervisor peskin, i know that we have had -- supervisor chan noted we did duplicate the file. there are certain aspects of what she's looking at. i wanted to get clarity on what the procedure was that you were trying to implement. but i understand now. i understand from the explanation from the city attorney. i wanted you to know why i asked that. we've been having extensive

conversations if we can put certain language in. come back and gave us updates on supervisor preston and i were having the conversation about the contracting authority and final authorization for l.r.v. purchases, parking meters. so we're in this back-and-forth with the city attorney as it pertains to the authority of the sfmta. so i was curious where this is trying to land. i understand we do retain certain powers as it pertains to the sfmta fees and park setting. >> supervisor peskin: i don't know that supervisor safai's question is a question, but i'll do my best to respond as the author of division one and division two of the transportation code and the author of proposition a of 2007. which is to say, i think we are within our legal right to maintain a modicum of oversight over these fees as set forth by the city attorney.

as it relates to supervisor chan's request for a duplication of the file in committee, there may be other changes that supervisor chan is interested in. i did discuss this notion with her as to the amendment that i offered, but she may have other suggestions. and we may want to individually, by separate legislation, have similar powers and authorities in section 6.14 of this code, but that is a conversation for another day and not before us today. >> president walton: thank you. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. i was only highlighting if there needed to be further conversation, we had a duplicated version, but it seems like your amendment is pretty straightforward. thank you, mr. chair. >> president walton: supervisor peskin, you said you would like this come back to item 18? >> supervisor peskin: at the suggestion of deputy city

attorney pearson, that is correct. >> president walton: please call item 19. >> ordinance to retroactively authorize the office of cannabis to accept and expend a $1 million grant award from the board of state and community corrections for the proposition 64 public health and safety grant program for a term of may 1, 2021 through october 31, 2024. and to amend the fiscal year's 2020-21 and 2021-22, the annual salary ordinance to provide for the addition of one grant funded class 1823 senior administrative analyst position for the office of cannabis for the period of july 1, 2021 through june 30, 2022. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. would you call the roll for item 19. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye.

>> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 20. >> item 20, resolution to authorize the recreation and park department to accept a $200,000 in-kind grant from t.s. studio for design services for the fillmore turk and upon the notice of substantial completion. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. and, colleagues, i just wanted

to thank chair haney of the budget committee for advancing this item to us and also thank the mayor who sponsored this item in my office, co-sponsored it. and i want to recognize and thank the work of rec park and also new community leadership foundation nclf and others working so hard on the renovation of the fillmore mini park. that is a crucial space in the heart of the fillmore and pleased to be supporting this item to get more resources for the design and urge support for this item. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. seeing no one else on the roster, i believe we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 21. resolution it approve the professional services agreement for the curbside management program between sp plus

corporation and the city for a three-year term with one two-year option to extend for $20.1 million through october 31, 2024. >> president walton: thank you. i believe we can take this item same house, same call. and without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 22. >> item 22, resolution to retroactively authorize the office of the district attorney to accept and expend a $914,000 grant from the california department of insurance for the workers compensation insurance fraud program term of july 1, 2021 through june 30, 2020. >> president walton: no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item number 23. >> resolution to levy property

taxes as a combined rate of approximately 1.18 odds. on the city, the school district, office of education, the bay area rapid transit district and the bay area air quality and establish a pass-through rate of .7 cents for 100 of assessed value pursuant to the administrative code, chapter 37, for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2022. >> president walton: same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, would you please call items 24 through 26. item 24 through 26, three

resolutions that approve for purposes of the internal revenue code of 1986, section 147f as amended the issuance of tax exempt obligations for the following amounts and facilities. item 24, this is issuance and sale plan to issue by the california enterprise development authority for $17 million to finance the chinese american international school. for item 25, pursuant to a plan of finance by california statewide communities development authority, for $35 million to finance the senior residential and care services and certain other matters related as defined. and for item 26, a plan to issue and to sell revenue obligations by the california enterprise development authority for $9 million to finance educational and related facilities to be owned and operated by the presidio hill school.

>> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take these items same house, same call. without objection, these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item number 27. >> 27 is an ordinance to authorize settlement of the $8 million lawsuit filed by maurice caldwell against the city. this alleges fabrication of evidence in violation of the 14th amendment. >> president walton: thank you, i don't see anyone on the roster. this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. please call item 28. >> item 28 is ordinance to amend the planning code to designate the fresco titled the making of a fresco showing the building of a city in the diego rivera

gallery at the san francisco art institute and to determine the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: please add me as a co-sponsor. >> noted. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. seeing no one else on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 29. >> item 29 is a resolution to authorize the acceptance and recording of an ave congratulations easement by the city from shac adrian court apartments for the development at 1 and 45 adrian court in burling gamecalcal and to affirm the skwal determination. -- ceqa determination.

>> president walton: that is adapted unanimously. >> item 30 is ordinance to amend the administrative code by setting march 31 as the annual due date to pay registration fees for weighing and measuring devices and automated point of sale stations used for commercial purposes. >> president walton: thank you. and seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. >> item 31 is a motion to reappoint supervisor melgar to the association of bay area governments executive board regional planning committee, term ending september 23, 2023. >> president walton: thank you. i will entertain a motion to excuse supervisor melgar, made by supervisor ronen, seconded by supervisor peskin.

madame clerk, on the motion. >> on the motion to excuse supervisor melgar from item 31, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. this is adopted 10-1 -- i'm sorry, 10-0. >> president, that is the motion to excuse supervisor melgar from item 31. >> president walton: thank you, motion to excuse supervisor melgar is passed 10-0.

madame clerk, on item 31. >> on item 31, supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. and item number 31 is adopted 10-0. madame clerk, it is not quite 3:00. supervisor peskin, are we ready for 18 yet? no, okay, thank you. madame clerk, please call item number 40. 40 was considered by the land

use at a regular meeting and was recommended as a committee report. item 40 is emergency ordinance to temporarily extend the covid-19 based limit on residential evictions that allows evictions only if based on the nonpayment of rent, health or safety issues and set to expire on september 30, 2021. i'll state, mr. president, pursuant to the charter, this requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the board of supervisors, which is eight votes for passage on one reading. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, would you call the roll for item 40. >> on item 40, supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye.

>> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. madame clerk, we are now at the time where we should start roll call for introductions. >> okay. first up to introduce new business is supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, colleagues. today i have a few items. the first is a hearing as well as a request to the city attorney both involving dbi and co-sponsored by supervisor peskin. in the 18 months since the

suspension and then resignation of former department building inspection head tom huey, following charges of legal violation, further allegations have arisen pointing to a deeper web of corruption at d.b.i. that is both undermining public trust and endangering residents across the city. last friday, mission local reporter published a story alleging missing -- and false inspections on property owned by building inspection commission president angus mccarthy, as well as insider conflicts with d.b.i. clients. last night, the commissioner sent a detailed response refuting every allegation and welcoming investigation. sadly, this supervisor's space in d.b.i. and anyone associated with it has been so eroded by the weekly scandals that are alleged, that with each additional allegation i'll continue to call for a thorough investigation no matter who is

accused. and so along with supervisor peskin, i am introducing today a formal request to the city attorney to investigate and report to the board of supervisors on these allegations. this is an important and necessary step along a path that we now have to follow to put a stop to unethical activities and fraud at city departments. the controller's public integrity report issued two weeks ago cited major flaws in the d.b.i. systems that has enabled it to bring in corruption. the scope of the preliminary review did not extend to the building inspections commission, but we know that unconflicted governance is critical to setting and enforcing ethical standard. d.b.i. and building inspections commission were established in 1994 via charter ballot measure proposition g. supervisor peskin, melgar and i are working together to explore potential options for meaningful

structural and systemic d.b.i. reform via charter ballot in june 2022. finally, last but not least, i'm requesting a hearing on d.b.i.'s implementation of the expanded compliance control legislation that i wrote and passed in march with co-sponsorship of every member of the board of supervisors. the law is intended to protect the public by requiring tracking and reporting of parties associated with significant building code violations. i want to know the status of the expanded compliance control, whether candidates of the list have been presented to the building inspection, whether parties who made it on the list are reported to the state licensing board, whether the list has been published on d.b.i.'s website as required. we couldn't find it doing a quick search. and whether all parties or permits associated with someone on the list are notified and the status of written guidance and training sessions for planning

on recognizing flagging permits that signal potential abuse. this is particularly important this last piece because in response to supervisor peskin's request of planning department, for a list of projects in which santos is associated, we got a current list of one, two, three, four, five, six -- 21 -- my understanding from supervisor peskin, this is not even a complete list, of potential owners that are unaware that mr. santos is under indictment and potentially -- or should be on our increased compliance control list. all of these owners of these properties should have been notified under my legislation and i want to make sure that has indeed happened. supervisor peskin, melgar and i are going to continue to engage

in multiple efforts at d.b.i. reform. we're not going to keep our eye off this ball and we're not going to let it go. this corruption has gone on for too long and something needs to change in major, major way. my second set of introductions are related to sfusd. the first is a hearing request about conditions of the k-8 school in my direct, buena vista which have become life-threatening at this point. the district 9 families and staff have been voicing concerns about dangers and unsanitary conditions at the school for more than five years. in response, sfusd promised to put them in the -- something my constituents helped fight to pass. the school has not been prioritized or funding and the

school has continued to experience deteriorating infrastructure as our colleague, commissioner melgar knows, since she ran an after-school program there for many years. they've made headlines and not for good reasons. in 2019, mission local reported on excrement, broken equipment, lack of toilet paper and soap. however, outdated infrastructure continues to present dangers to students and faculties. last year, a student was shocked at the school because of faulty wiring. only half of the children in the second grade class have made the decision to keep their children home from school because they do not feel physically safe in the building. the high temperature and lack of ventilation have caused children to have eczema and the boys' bathroom has nonfunctioning

doors. a child fell and had to be sent to the e.r. last month there was a dangerous gas leak. staff and families reported the odor and the school district dismissed their concerns, it must have been the smell of dead rodents, which is believelible. they ordered all 480 students to evacuate and found a pilot gas fitting that is loose. i am calling a hearing to find out why there has been such long delays to address the issues and what the plan is to fix it. finally, colleagues, i'm introducing an official request for the budget and legislative analyst to prepare a report on state funding for special

education services and its impact on sfusd budget. they have significant structural deficit exceeding $100 million. a major portion of that deficit is the difference between what sfusd spends on their legally mandated responsibilities to provide special education to students who need it and what the state provides for the services. i'm asking how the california fund special education services for local school district, the size of the projected deficit and how much of that is related to insufficient state funding. how the need for special education services has increased in the last decade. and state efforts to right-size special education funding and why those efforts have failed. colleagues, as you know, i've been very focused on sfusd and the well-being of our children in public schools along with supervisor melgar.

if our work in sf rise to create a community school model across the district is to be successful, we have to deal deliveryingly as a -- collectively as a city with the structural deficit that sfusd faces. otherwise, any additional funds that we are able to raise for this -- for our underfunded school district, will be sucked up by that deficit. i appreciate supervisor mandelman's suggestion that we even foot the bill for the special recall election, because if we don't, the bottom line is, that it will be cuts to the classrooms, cuts to the services and the education that our kids are receiving. that's how serious things are. i know that isn't our normal job. we aren't elected to run our school district, but the situation is so dire that i think we have no choice but to hold hands with the district and

it's all hands on deck effort to save our public schools w. that, i submit. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai: colleagues, today, i have a few things to introduce. first of all, seeking to amend the administrative code to allow sheriff deputies to perform contract with private entities to provide supplemental law enforcement services. if you remember in this chamber, we've been talking about organized retail crime and crime. we had a number of hearings in public services neighborhood safety committee. it was in that hearing that we heard directly from walgreen's, we heard from the gap, cvs and safeway and others about the brazen nature of theft that is happening in the city. the impact it's having on front-line workers. the target in san francisco. wed a meeting with them.

they informed us that the safety of their workforce was in danger. they felt unsafe. employees felt unsafe. and that's part of the reason why we're the only place in the country where hours at target had been cut. stores have shut down. -- across our city. prior to the pandemic and through the pandemic many of those related to the brazen nature of theft that is happening. so, we have worked on this issue since that time. put together a working group that includes local 5, 648. that includes the hotel council, many community benefits district, fishermen's wharf, union square, the council of merchants, s.f. travel, naacp, the california retailers

association, san francisco chamber of commerce and many small business owners that have talked about the impact this is having on their customers, the well-being of their workforce and safety. i was happy to hear the chief agree to be the police department chief to be the co-chair of this working group. they announced last week, the chair and the mayor announced doubling down of efforts to supplement our off-duty program with our police officers, but what we have heard over and over again for the past year and even recently is that many of the requests for this off-duty work are unfilled. and people don't show up because there is not enough people that are willing to perform that service. we are now proposing to expand that to include sheriffs. they're training law enforcement, they protect us in the building, they perform services at s.f. general. they're all over san francisco in a professional manner. so we see this as a

straightforward piece of legislation. it expands the pool of people that available. this will not cost the taxpayers of san francisco one dime. the money that will be paid for the off-duty overtime work is by the private entity and employer. this is about deterrence. this is not about going back to the decades of over-incarceration. those of you who were on the budget committee supported me and my efforts along with the mayor to jump start an alternative sentencing program. many of the people involved in this organized retail crime and crime have underlying drug and alcohol addiction issues, so we put that in place. thank you for supervisor walton for your support, for being there. thank you, supervisor haney, for being there and all the colleagues on the budget committee along with the mayor for strong support in the alternative sentencing. we believe all of this together will help to work to combat what we're seeing in the city.

statistically, retail theft might be down, but the brazen nature of what we've seen in this city as evidenced by what all of us saw happen in walgreen's and all of us saw happen in bloomingdale's is on the rise. this is an attempt to deter this type of activity. the district attorney is part of our working group. he's engaged on this. so, we feel very confident that the positive outcome of this will have a really strong impact on san francisco. so we propose that today. and thank you, supervisor mar, for your early support in this effort. look forward to working with many of you colleagues in furthering these conversations. second piece of legislation that we're doing today is amendment to the police code that regulates cannabis businesses. it's become clear that this board unanimously supports the effort to encourage and ensure that cannabis industry grows and

grows in a healthy way in san francisco. and we must do what we can to ensure that equity operators, those that are participating in this industry, are doing it in a thoughtful way. so, in terms of the shaping, how this community looks like and businesses look like, it's also about what responsibilities they have to our community and community members. so today this legislation is another step in doing -- in that direction. this authorizes the office of economic and workforce development to develop standards, governing, certification of apprenticeship programs, but it also talks about the standards that o.e.w.d. may establish in setting these apprenticeship standards. this ordinance would clarify what office of economic workforce and development is able to propose. including underserved community

outreach, and business development plan training. as i stated last week, i believe in true equity in the cannabis industry. and i think it's important that we ensure that the populations harmed by the war on drugs and local residents are prioritized. this legislation strengthens the equity in apprenticeship training by legislating training for all qualified dispensaries in that program. not all are required to participate. this would require the medical cannabis dispensaries ensure that 35% of their new hires come from apprenticeship training programs to the extent feasible. if m.c.d. has more than 10 employees, that the medical cannabis dispensary must enter into a labor peace agreement or community benefits agreement. there has been some attempt to create labor organizations and

not truly representative of the labor movement. and so we can have further conversations about that when this goes into committee. these are the same requirements made of the cannabis business permits under article 16 of the police code and adult use operators. and this legislation is an opportunity to further bring cannabis in san francisco under one umbrella and create an equitable and homogenous. it ensures that they're looking in terms of their local hire and how they work with hiring people from certified apprenticeship training programs. and then finally, colleagues, i'm introducing a resolution honoring october as dyslexia awareness month in the city and county of san francisco. for those of you who don't know about dyslexia, it is unexpected

learning in reading. basically, the appreciation of the individual sounds and language, which as i said, speaks to the ability to speak, read, spell and often the ability to learn a second language. dyslexia is a common learning disability that affects 80-90% of individuals that actually have a learning difference. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> for proposed project at 575 vermont street by a motion dated may 13, 2021 to allow construction of a new four-story

40-foot tall residential building containing one dwelling unit and one accessory unit and one parking space and three class 1 bicycle parking spaces within the residential house 2 family zoning district and height and bulk district. item 33. motion to approve the decision for conditional use authorization for the vermont street project and the motion to conditionally disapprove the department's decision to approve the conditional use authorization subject to the adoption of rent and finding and support of the determination and item 35 to direct the preparation of findings in support of the board of supervisors to approval of the proposed conditional use authorization. >> thank you, madame clerk. colleagues, we have before us a hearing on the appeal of a conditional use authorization

for the project at 575 vermont street. the appellants and the project sponsor are very close to reaching an agreement and both the project sponsor and appellant have requested a continuance to the october 19, 2021 meeting so they can finalize the details of the agreement. i would like to make a motion to continue items 32 through 35 to october 19, 2021 meeting. can i get a second? seconded by supervisor peskin. madame clerk, before we vote can we take public comment on the continuance to the october 19 meeting. >> thank you, mr. president. operations do we have anyone in the queue if the number is streaming on the screen. 415-655-0001 the meeting i.d. is

24841795536 and interpreters know to jump in and assist with any public's interpretative needs. do we have a caller in the queue, please? >> we have' motion to continue made by me and seconded by supervisor peskin. >> clerk: on the motion to continue it to october 19, 2021. supervisor roanen. ronen aye. stefani, aye. supervisor chan. chan aye.

supervisor haney. haney aye. supervisor mandelman. absent. supervisor mar. aye. supervisor peskin. aye. supervisor preston. aye. there are 10 ayes. >> we'll continue to october 19, 2021 approved by a vote of 10-0. madame clerk will you call the next special order item? >> items 36-39 were continued open from september 7, 2021 for a public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 450 to 474 o'farrel street and jones street to amend the conditions

of approval of separate motion adopted on september 13, 2018 to include a new church and up to 316 group housing rooms located in an rc-4 residential commercial high density zoning district. north of market residential special use district and ad 130-t height and bulk district. item 37 is the motion to approve the motion for the use authorization subject to the adoption in support and item 39 is the motion to direct the

preparation of findings in support of the board of supervisor's disapproval of the proposed conditional use authorization. >> we have the items for 450-474 o'farell street and we'll approve or disapprove at the 450-474 o'farell street and we'll have up to 10 minutes for a presentation for the appellant or their representative. public comment, two minutes per speaker in support and up to 10

minutes for a presentation from the planning department up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor and finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or their representative. i don't see any objections and we'll proceed as indicated and is now open. supervisor haney, do you have opening remarks? >> not at this time. >> commissioner: thank you, supervisor haney. seeing no one else on the roster we'll ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. you'll have up to 10 minutes and i believe we have speakers here

to present >> i'm not sure if the slides are up or not. >> clerk: can we have the slides, please. >> we received two slide decks. can you please confirm which one. >> thank you, should i start. >> commissioner: yes, you may begin your time. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm the director of the

collaborative program and i'm here to ask you to uphold and disapprove the project at 450 o'farell street. slide two, please. many community stakeholders i think it's slide two, please. >> clerk: slide two, mr. jalipa. >> clerk: we're pausing your time. >> my apologies. i did advance the slide. i don't think it's being refreshed. >> okay. >> should i just continue? >> clerk: to the president, i

believe there may be a they are and the slide may need a refresh. >> thank you. many community stake holders and i were involved in the previously approved project for the dwelling units for the tenderloin neighborhood and there was months of negotiation to address community needs and concerns by the then developer. the community was ultimately supportive of the project and as we felt it was going to bring much needed family sized units to the neighborhood that is always saturated. apart from existing sros, currently there's close to 1,000 units of group housing being built all in the pipeline for tenderloin and the community was not aware and the proposal for group housing was slated for planning commission approval without any property community engagement by the new project

sponsor. the community did not hear from forge until they were prompted but planned to reach out reflecting the discussion with the project sponsor in december 2020 which with was a month before the initial scheduled hearing. they believe because it had not changed interacting with the community was unnecessary. when staining holders finally had an opportunity to engage in meaningful conversation around the details of the project, both the residents and the stakeholders expressed numerous concerns. the project sponsors are marketing the project as group family housing and want unit size larger to accommodate families. we proposed a size to address the issue of overcrowding we currently see in our neighborhood. group housing can only

accommodate limited kitchen inside the unit. not enough for two or four people we ask the developer to add more in the proposal but the developer ignored our request and the current proposal includes only three for the building and the community is also displaced this project will not meet the current affordable requirements were grandfathered in in a lower inclusionary rate. all these were approved by the planning commission 4-2 in spied of community on opposition. the community consistently reached out it planning to better understand what was possible under the group housing definition leaving no limit in square footage of housing and following the appeal we hired a pro bono architect to show the

possibility of larger units within the building of group housing but ultimately the proposal was rejected by forge. we also recently launched planning they had not approved group housing or the square feet to blur the lines of group housing and dwelling units and were told it was only meant for temporary residents. even this we believe group housing should not be built without boundaries of group housing and dwellings. this proposal is completely unclear, 632 bed group housing project no neighborhood should be forced into either. would you want this project in your district? is the largest group housing project in the city with unclear boundaries of group housing in a neighborhood already saturated with building types and with a

developer that has never headed this kind of project. today you received an open letter from residents. many of whom are unable to participate due to lack of technology. they want us to disapprove this project. myself and the tenderloin residents have worked for decades to make this community better. we know this is what is best for the community and this is not. we respectfully ask the board to disapprove the project as the community deemz this project undesirable and harmful. thank you. -- deems. >> commissioner: thank you so much. does that conclude your presentation? >> yes. >> commissioner: i don't see anyone on the roster with

questions and madame clerk we'll open public comment for those in support of the appeal. >> clerk: the board will hear public testimony specific to the appeal of conditioned use approval for the o'farell street and jones project. we're setting the timer for two minutes and the telephone number is streaming on your screen, 1-415-655-0001, when you hear the prompt enter the meeting i.d. 24841795536 and press pound twice. to be added to the speakers queue to provide comments you'll press star 3 when it's your turn and the system will send you a prompt and listen for "you have been unmuted" and start

beginning your comments. with us are three interpreters and i'll ask each interpreter to introduce themselves and the service they're here to provide. we have speaking filipino and for cantonese and a spanish interpreter. welcome. [speaking foreign language]

0yy

>> clerk: thank you for being here with us this afternoon to all three interpreters. operations can we hear from the first caller. welcome. >> hi. my name is cathy vaun. i have lived in the tenderloin for five years.

i'm opposed to this project. my concern is that there's currently a group housing project of 200 units and another one at 150, 200 units at the 300 block of churt and have been awarded a contract at 472 and now around 300 units at 450 o'farell. that's almost 1,000 units of group housing for one two two people. we need more housing for families. there are families of four and five more people living in cramped conditions and need more space to live in. please reject the project and stand with the people in the tenderloin. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, next caller, please. >> this is david elliott lewis

with the collaborative. i have lived in the similar type of building for over a decade no longer, thank god, that had one community kitchen for 74 units. this is one community kitchen for 106 units and it was so horrible to try to cook anything that required an oven or stove i as a resident gave up. to compete with so many dozens of other tenants for one oven for a couple of ovens was untenable. this kind of height density group housing project might have made sense when it was designed pre-covid to put 600 plus people and 316 units in a small space with lots of community space and activity but tiny apartments but now we live in the age of respiratory illnesses and because of vaccine resistance

covid is not going away soon. it impact the vulnerable residents next door these are permanent supportive housing residents in a 110 year old unreinforced masonry building the builder wants to go to the lot line without setbacks and they've asked for a 15 foot setback and haven't been able to reach an agreement on this and it puts these very vulnerable 75 or 76 tenants in jeopardy and may all have to move as a result. there's also issues of loss of light and air circulation. finally, the church will claim they need space for their sanctuary and they already have one and they gave us a tour and they don't need a new one. they have one right now. david elliott lewis.

please do not affirm the project. >> clerk: there are 40 listening and 19 callers in the queue. we're taking testimony pursuant to the o'farrell and jones street project. those in support of the appellant. let's welcome our next caller. welcome, caller. >> maybe i'll wait for the next queue because i'm not necessarily opposed to the project. >> clerk: if you would get back in line by pressing star 3. we'll get to public comment in support of the project further down the hearing. thank you, sir. operations let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hello. my name is susan bryan. i live three blocks from the

proposed project. i've been living here for 30 years and this project would deteriorate the conditions of the neighborhood. originally the original plans to have larger apartments and the possibility of people having a small family in them was barely doable at that point but now the new plan which was sprung on us, i was at the presentation and the idea of so little community kitchens are a nice idea but in practice people want their own oven and refrigerator.

what happens is maybe a certain group of people take over the community kitchen and nobody else gets around and then other people would be just the idea of all these people living and there's no cohesive reason for all these people to be together. apparently -- [chime] >> clerk: you have 30 seconds, ma'am. all right, thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> good afternoon i'm gabby ruiz and i'm here to support tenderloin housing clinic's request to reject the project at 450 o'farrell. we have major concern with the

housing type being proposed in our dense neighborhood such as tenderloin when neighborhoods need family sized dwelling units and want to raise concern around the definition in question and how this meets the current planning code. after reviewing the june 24 hearing the project sponsor said the housing proposal is designed for tam liz due to the advance kitchen facilities included in the units. despite our belief the size is not sufficient for families the housing definition explicitly states the housing type provides lodging or meals and lodging without individual cooking facilities. after digging deeper in section 209.28 of the planning code there was an amendment introduced in 2005 that allowed individual cooking facilities in hotel rooms or suites and tourist hotels but stated it was

not to create dwelling units or permanent residency which puts into question how this could be marketed for families when it seems the inteches of group housing was for temporary living. we fundamentally believe the group housing definition needs to be refined before we continue to approve these types of projects and it seems that what's on the books and what was presented to community and planning does not line up. thank you for your time. >> clerk: we have a timer system once you hear the soft bell it provides you notice you have 30 more seconds to finish your thought before a louder bell will ring and hopefully you'll finish your thoughts. we're setting the timer.

dough do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> i'm peter rauche a presidents of -- resident of the tenderloin and opposing the project due to the scope as stated and the community is in need for larger units and we eed to have and this project is not near that direction. i do support the construction of the new church i cannot support the construction of an over crowded -- another, group housing situation. thank you.

>> clerk: we're taking testimony in support of the appellant and we have 43 listening and 15 callers in the queue. if you're one of the 43 and would like it provide testimony in support of the appellant you should press star 3 now to get in the speakers queue. operations let's hear from the next speaker now, please. >> hi, my name is kevin stoll i'm with a collaborative and speaking against this project. three years ago in negotiation with the developer we received actual benefits for the neighborhood but unfortunately due to certain reasoning the

project managers and this project developer decided not to have any community benefits for the community and because of that he was unwilling to negotiate anything or to meet with us. that to me is a red flag this developer has no feelings or cares for the neighborhood itself. and i'm opposed to this project because of that. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, sir. operations next caller, please. >> i'm melinda gums. i'm in opposition to this project. the way it was initially presented was great and the way it is now is not good as far as i'm concerned. i live in an sro and have been

here for 13 years and i'm very grateful for it but however, the neighborhood is so crowded with single-room occupancy or maybe group housing units that i think it would be very nice for me personally just to have some families and children around so you feel more normal. it seems we have extremely high dense population of sros. and also the developer has not been reaching out to the public to the community. and i am a patient at the curry senior center and the building they're building over there has a diesel generator out front and polluted the clinic so badly they had to close tuesday afternoon to monday because they didn't move the generator or turn it off because it was so smoky. i don't think they care about the neighborhood at all. thank you for your time.

>> operations, do we have another caller in the queue that would like to provide testimony in support of the appeal or appellant and against the project? >> there are 15 callers in the queue. >> thank you, operations. mr. president, that concludes the testimony in support of the appellant. mr. president, please don't gavel down yet. my apologies i did not hear properly. there are 18 callers in the queue. okay. thank you. operations let's hear from the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, this is anna

part of the san francisco tenants union and rep coalition. i participated in the planning commission hearing and there were so many community members who participated in that hearing saying they wanted family housing for their people. these tiny rooms and community kitchen for 106 people is unacceptable. when you can have something else. in 2018 i understand they had a developer willing to do a plan that provided for families. it seems like this plan is not going to work coupled with what's happening next door with

the pacific whatever company having so many problems with the development. i think you should deny this project and support the appeal. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. operations do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is felicia. i'm a tenant organizer at the union hotel. it is an sro. i have lived there about nine years now and know how difficult for even one person to manage to live in there especially after coming from a house. i am against this project for all the other reasons that everybody else has said. i'm going to give you a little

example of something that happened to me three months ago. i was standing in line at trader joe's and the woman behind me had three small children and i was getting the age of the kids and stuff and she told me they were living in a studio on taylor street that mom and three small kids in a studio and she said it was so bad that it was destroying their marriage. it's not and this is why you need to vote against this project because we need family housing. there's plenty of single room occupancy. there's four or five vacancies in my building. there's plenty of single room

occupancy. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. we have our own issues with group housing on portrero hill and this is not family friendly. there's nothing necessary or desirable about the project and the tenderloin deserves better. i do encourage the board to immediately take a close look at for profit group housing. we're seeing a worrying trend of developers taking advantage of ambiguities in the planning code to maximize profit. thank you.

>> i work for a collaborative. and i work at a park. i'm against this project because i think we all can understand the backbone of any community are families and san francisco has had a mass exodus of families for years now and it has to stop and the reason is because the projects keep going up and the units aren't being built. i would really urge the board to not approve this as it stands. they had 150 units and it had

family units in there at 317. that's not going work. it's all about profit with these people and that's a shame because it's a faith-based group and it's all about profit. i would again urge you all to please vote against it. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comment, sir. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> i'm actually going to go later in support of this project not in support of the appeal. sore where i. -- sorry. >> thank you, sir. press star 3. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> my name is scott and i support the project.

>> thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? we're taking testimony for those in support of the appeal or may be against the project. >> hi, my name is john and i've been a resident in san francisco 70 years and i'm in favor of this project. they've been trying to -- >> clerk: i'm going to pause your time, sir. we're hearing from those who would like to provide testimony against the project or in support of the appeal. you mentioned with you were for the project so just press star 3 and you'll go back in the queue. thank you, sir. thanks for your patience. all right. is there another caller if the queue in support of the appeal or appel?

-- appellant? >> hello? >> welcome. >> hello? >> welcome. >> as it sarah short with sun rise and we're also in support of the appeal of the project. there's a number of reasons. we think the last thing the tenderloin neighborhood needs right now is market rate group housing. the units are not going to be affordable to members of our community and we should do all we can to address the affordability while so many remain over crowded and rent burdened and living on the streets. group housing by definition is considered non-permanent housing. we need permanent housing in the neighborhood to afor families to build roots and help build the community here. we also need family housing.

you can hear the disappointment from so many the project was originally intended to be family housing. that's where the need is right now and the fact that forge has not been willing to come to the table and look at alternatives to how to increase the unit size and serve families despite many requests to do so and even alternate proposals put forward. forge has not been a good act in terms of reaching out to the community nor in terms of responding to the community requests or needs. we also need higher affordability set aside. the project is going to go in at 13.5% but the law requires at 25.5% inclusionary and that's

something the owner could choose to do to show good faith interest in the community needs to provide what is actually now the standard for affordable housing considering that's a great need for the tenderloin. >> thank you for your comments. there's 42 people in the listening queue and nine who are ready to make comment. this is the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the appeal, the appellant and/or against the project. if you're one of the 40 and expect to provide testimony in support of the appeal now's your opportunity to press star 3. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please.

perhaps that's an unattended line. next line, please. welcome, caller. >> hello, welcome, caller. perhaps that's an individual in support of the project. let's go to the next caller, please. >> hello, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity. my name is curtis bradford and i'm co-chair of the tenderloin's peoples congress and long time part of the coalition among other things. and i am calling today in support of the appeal of the project as it stands. look, we've been trying to work with the developer for months now and have been unwilling to budge or negotiate and we tried

to bring together with arbitration of the party and failed to negotiate and make changes and we've asked for changes from the beginning. we need larger units and family sized units and this does not provide for families and that's what needed in the neighborhood. we don't need group housing small units that will add to the density of our neighborhood without bringing any additional resources to deal with the already overcrowded conditions of the tenderloin. we need family housing and need people who will live in the neighborhood and become part of the community and contribute to the neighborhood. long-term residents not transient group housing residents which group housing is not to be permanent housing in san francisco. i also believe this project will

be changed dramatically. it started off with family sized units and when they changed the developers they changed drastically and i don't think this project is remotely resembling the original project. it should have been forced to get all the approval from the beginning and meet the 20.5% affordable set aside not the grandfathered in they're trying to slide to on. the first project wasn't even group housing. i'm asking you to -- >> clerk: please accept my apologies for interrupting anyone going over two minutes but we are setting the timer for two minutes. so operations, let's hear from the next caller. we have callers in the queue and

42 listening. >> i'm the executive director of an organization and we had a petition at change.org and received 569 signatures against the project and wanted alterations to the design and there's also public comment mentioned on the petition and all forwarded to each supervisor's office. the alliance for better district 6 believes the project doesn't meet the code 303c and is not compatible or desirable with the neighborhood and request the board of supervisors to disapprove the conditional use authorization at 450-474 o'pharrell and 532 jones treat

and point out the new project has no parking for 600 tenant to cause problems on a major bus line the 38 geary. it's been rammed through the planning process. i hope you will listen to the public. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. operations we have 10 callers in the queue ready to make comment and 42 listening. if you're one of the 42 and would like to provide testimony in support of the appel or against the project you should be inline to speak now. suppress star 3.

next caller, operations. >> i'm sarah and i'm calling in opposition to the project at 450 o'farrell. it already contains the majority of the city's group housing units and many are empty because the community needs units for families. while the developer argues this is for families it's disrespectful to push the narrative that tenderloin families deserves half a kitchen and do you with family would you live with your family in one of these units? why should we expect tenderloin family to do this and this is another example of pushing a less than desired proposal and in pushing the development through without a clear understanding of what group housing should be and they're asking for dignity to the people that live here. i agree we need more housing but this not adequate and sets a bad

president department. i urge you to disapprove the project. >> operations, next caller, please. >> >> i'm manny garcia and organizer for the hotel next to where this is supposed to go and in opposition because we constantly hear about community. transient housing does not promote communities it's in opposition. i can't believe in this day and age we're trying build communal anything. >> okay. operations, next caller, please.

they're not answering. next caller, please. >> i'm colleen rebecca and work for tnbc and have been working over the past almost year or so now with directly with tenderloin residents concerned about and voicing their concerns about the project and i want to reflect what i've been hearing from hundreds of residents in the ten den -- tenderloin. they're not residents opposed to now housing or bringing people into the tenderloin. they're opposed to the type of housing which is market rate group housing not the type of housing that is needed in the neighborhood especially by families.

what people are opposed to is not the fact we're adding to the neighborhood but the fact that housing being proposed has only 13.5% of units designated as affordable when the standard is 20.5%. and that was slipped in because of the previous design in the building. that's not what the neighborhood needs. when the community members have voiced their concerned we haven't been met with a good faith effort to try to come to an agreement that we can all agree on. instead we're relying on the developer's word on what isn't feasible. what the community mem bers are asking for is housing that works for the neighborhood not housing that just works for developer's profs. thank you. >> thank you for your comments.

operations, i'll state we have 40 callers who are listening and we have eight callers in the queue. hopefully those eight are all providing testimony in support or against and there are be an opportunity for those in support of the project and so let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hello, my name is lorraine massly. i'll take off my mask. i'm at work and have been listening to the comments. i may have dialed incorrectly because i would like to speak later because i must have hit the wrong code. i want to speak in support. >> very good.

star 3 will put you back in the listening queue and we thank you for your patience. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> linda chapman. i've lived half a century in the next neighborhood over and opposing this for two reasons. one, i don't have to tell you the tenderloin has long had a big population of families, immigrant families and others with limited resources who need a decent form of family housing. the other thing is i'm a big proponent for sros they're not inferior housing but nevertheless, and by the way, when i was living in a co-op we had several units sros with a

bathroom and kitchen for individuals to cook. when i worked for the coalition with san francisco neighborhoods on revitalizing the planning code to build non-traditional concept housing i supported it but not for this kind of purpose. what's has happened is the developers are trying to shoehorn as many projects as they can and imagine calling them family housing, for example, or doing it market rate and so on? they're not serving a need. they're taking advantage. it's unconscionable they allow the code change to be made to be misused by developers like this and especially in our neighborhood there's not unit exposure or adequate opportunities for air and light or proper cooking facilities for

a family or anything else. it's one thing living in a place where meals are cooked and served and you don't need a kitchen but another to have a family with a group facility. that concludes my remark. >> all right. operations, another caller, please. >> hello, i'm jason crosslin and member of ccsolc and resident of the tenderloin and oppose the project. it's a large amount of people in an already over crowd area and we need family housing not group housing. the developer has been unwilling to listen to the community and our needs and we deserve better than more group or sro type housing in our neighborhood.

many families living in over crowded conditions and they deserve better too. >> we're taking testimony in support of the appellant and we're setting the timer for two minutes. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? there are four in the queue and 38 listening. if you're one of the 38, you should press start 3 now to get in the speaker's queue otherwise the last group may go quickly with four. >> i'm spoin ert of the project so i'll wait until that part comes up. >> thank you, sir. welcome to the next caller. >> hello, this is casey sadbury. i'm a resident and worker in the

tenderloin. we work at echo mark and many other open spaces in the neighborhood and i'm opposing 450 o'farrell on the basis of respect for dignity and health in the neighborhood versus pure greed and profit. our neighborhood shouldn't be used to increase tax base and i want to highlight the fact that this in density is not accompanied by any contributions to public green space and people need it. the developer has shown very poor community engagement process. this means a lack of respect for

existing neighborhoods. when we hear of support of the project they don't live in the neighborhood it's proposed for them not those already here and our city planning needs to think of the tenderloin and soma and downtown neighborhoods as re -- residential health and dignity. >> we have five callers in the queue. let's hear from the next caller providing testimony in support of the appeal.

>> hello. my name is karen taylor. i have been a resident of the tenderloin for 15 years i'm also a member of a collaborative and i would like to speak against this proposal to build their warehouse of people at 450 o'farrell. it is wrong. we were sold a bait and switch. they said it would be for family housing and then changed it to this huge transient project. they said 20% would be affordable as is the rule and then they went back on that and cut it back down to like 13%. it's not human scale. the developer and planners have forgotten it's our neighborhood.

most the school kids lich in this neighborhood and elderly and disabled. we were treated with disrespect and a second group came along and tracked outreach to them and it's not thinking about what this neighborhood needs which is affordable housing. we have plenty of transient housing. i've been living in the same spot for 15 years. that's the state of transient housing buz genuine affordable housing for people who need, the most vulnerable in our town, is so slow to come. this is not the right sized project. this is not the right fit project. this is not the project the tenderloin neighborhood needs. please vote against this project and support ccsro in trying to stop this thing. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony.

>> hello. >> welcome. >> hi name is shia and i am speaking to oppose the project as a resident of the district i ask the board of supervisor consider the lived experience of the community members in this district. we have time and time again seen how developer companies come into our community and take what they need and move on without a thought with the impact to families and neighborhoods and we're asking for affordability in housing the neighborhood needs and not more group housing

and we need suggestion stainable housing units that give black and brown communities the stability they need to access other resources when they have to pay high prices in housing. thank you >> thank you for your comments. we are still taking testimony in support of the appeal or against the project. we have about five callers in the queue. we're going to take this group to the end unless the 36 listeners press star 3 to get in the queue to provide testimony. again we're only taking testimony in support of the appeal or against the project at this time. operations, next caller, please. [please stand by] .

-- it is set to accommodate only 600 people. the tender line does not need any more roads and dormitory style housing units. families are leaving this neighborhood and this trend will continue without this. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please?

>> madam clerk, there are no further callers. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: [indiscernible] thank you. we will now have up to 10 minutes for representatives of the planning department and i believe that we have collie grove and kate connor and erin starr and corey tee with us this afternoon. >> good afternoon, erin starr with legislative affairs and here with carly who will do the presentation on this and also the project planner. >> good members of the board. planning department staff. as described to the appeal before you it's for a conditional use authorization at 450 farrow and the conditional

use was used to modify the conditions of approval of a project that was approved in september 2018. the original project at 450 old farrow had the demolition of three buildings, including the current location of the church of christ scientist and the 13-story 176 dwelling units and ground retail and off-street parking. the primary modified project which is subject -- which is the subject of the appeal, will replace the 176 dwelling units with 316 group housing rooms, with up to 632 beds within the approved building envelope. and the modified project scope was approved by the planning commission on june 24th. in response to the community concerns about the family sized units in a dense neighborhood, the neighborhood imposed five conditions and encouraged responsors to have more housing

rooms greater than 500-square-feet. and it was appealed by the pacific bay inn and the tenderloin clinic. and first there were two concerns, the adquaws of the environmental review, impacts to the adjacent pacific bay inn. and the preference for dwelling units over group housing. in response to the first concern, the potential impacts raised by the appellant has been analyzed and disclosed to the second addendum to the eir. they have addressed these issues and various correspondents with the pacific bay inn. in response to the second concern, the project includes group housing rooms with density which is permitted by the planning code. the planning commission considered the community feedback and acknowledged the need to review the group housing regulations in the planning code, but found that on balance that the project was necessary and desirable. additionally, the project sponsor has not advised in

response to the community by adding larger group housing rooms that may be shared by individuals. while these rooms may serve some families in the neighborhood, it does not provide the family housing to alleviate the community's concerns. the scope of the proposal is to provide group housing rooms, not dwelling units. the planning department recommends that the board uphold the planning commission's decision and approving the conditional use authorization for the project. that concludes my presentation and i am also available for questions. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, carly. looks like we have supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: thank you so much for that and for this presentation. i have a few questions. one is if you could clarify and help us to understand what the consequences of upholding this appeal would be? i know that there was a prior approval of a c.u., would the project sponsor then be able to

revert back to the original c.u.? can you explain how that works? >> sure. the project was approved and they are in an approved conditional use motion as well as an approved site -- an issued site permit. so we did briefly consult the zoning administrator on this and we believe that they could go back to their original approval >> supervisor haney: can you describe a bit that project? what was different about that original c.u., versus the one that's in front of us? >> sure. the primary difference was that the original c.u. included 176 dwelling units, and the revised project included 316 group housing rooms. the dwelling unit mix of the approved project and the studios, one-bedroom and two-bedrooms and three-bedrooms, the previous project also incorporated a greater amount of off-street parking.

the primary differences, there were minor shifts from the approved massing to the new massing. but the primary driver would be change in residential use type. >> supervisor haney: and did the project sponsor give any explanation for why there was such a -- you know, a large change in the type of -- >> i will let the project sponsor speak to that. >> supervisor haney: i'll ask him that, that's a fair answer. so just so to clarify that your understanding is that if we did and if there's a difference in each how of the three projects treats the church? i know that we have heard a lot about the need to rebuild the church, and can you give us a sense of how the church is dealt with differently in each of the two proposals?

>> sure. the impact to the church are pretty minor. the church is replaced in both scenarios. >> supervisor haney: okay. thank you for that. i also have a question about the affordable housing requirements i know that when the project was first introduced the city's affordable housing requirements for residential projects was only 13.5%. however, since then the affordability requirements have changed and yet this project was grandfathered. so despite a really dramatic increase in the size of the project, and, obviously, the timing of it is such that we're a number of years after it the percentage change, and in fact, the project is essentially nearly doubled in size, how is this grandfathering justified? and what would be the level of affordability that would be required in this project if it was being proposed without

referring back to the original ceqa application? >> sure, thank you for the question. the on-site affordability by the point at which the file for the environmental application. the grandfathering was also locked in because the project sponsor was able to obtain a site permit by the deadlines in 415 to retain the grandfathering for the old project. because the new project was found to be a substantial confirmity with the old project and did not require a new environmental evaluation application, it was able to retain the 13.5% on-site rate which was grandfathered. currently, the on-site rate for projects in the tenderloin depends on the tenure of the building. this project is in the north of market residential special use

district which requires a 25% on-site rate for rental projects with more than 25 units. and a 27% on-site rate for ownership projects with more than 25 units. >> supervisor haney: so it sounds like if this project was not grandfathered in, that there would be a requirement of 25% affordable -- >> that's right. >> supervisor haney: all on-site? >> the inclusionary program provides a provide of alternatives and this could elect to pay an in lieu fee. i'm assuming rental kind of moving forward but the on-site rate is 25% because they wanted to pay the in lieu fee, it would be a 30% fee rate. >> supervisor haney: i got it, and i would note that the project has affordability, that is about half of that. a little over half of it. and you said that there was a decision that there was

substantial conformity between the two projects? can you -- can you explain how that determination is made. it seems to me that these are two very different projects, nearly double the size in terms of the units. how did you decide that this had substantial conformity between the two projects? >> sure, it's a little before my time as a project planner but it would have been a discussion between our environmental planning division and the director to determine if the changes to the project were significant enough to trigger this new environmental application. although the residential program did change from dwelling units to group housing, increasing the number of residential units, it was still proposing a similar amount of residential use at the site. and so, you know, working through the addendum process we were able to evaluate the -- if

there were any significant changes between those two projects, but generally speaking, the project still proposes the similar mix of uses that the original project proposes. although they are sort of splitting up the units in a different way. >> supervisor haney: okay. it seems that it's hard to understand how this could be seen as substantially similar considering that the entire change in the types of units and even the very definitions around it. i'm interested in the conditions that were implemented by the planning commission for a conditional approval. it says that the project should increase the number of larger group housing units wherever feasible. what does that mean? and can that be further defined?

i mean, that doesn't necessarily require them to do anything. >> sure. there was another condition that did require that the developer to switch out ground floor retail for -- and to provide larger group housing rooms the commission i think was met with the same kind of conundrum where we knew the project scope was for group housing and these larger units exceeding about 500-square-feet and up to 180-square-feet, did seem like an alternative with rooms that provided for greater household sizes than just one or two people. so the commission encouraged the sponsor to use whatever non-residential space within the building and evaluate whether or not they could provide a greater number of those larger group

housing rooms to continue to try to provide rooms that could be occupied by more people. considering that the goal -- one of the goals of the project is to replace the church, you know, the church facility, the space occupied by the church facility, you know, wasn't necessarily something that they considered changing out. but they specifically mentioned the storage area and the basement, and referenced feasibility for the -- you know, in kind of conversation about that storage area, because of building code concerns, as well as the retail and kind of exploring other ways to even kind of continue to reconfigure the upper floors. >> supervisor haney: so this condition is sort of connected as you said to some of the other conditions except what i'm

wondering is has the project sponsor -- and i'll ask them this as well -- have they demonstrated how they are planning to abide by this -- this particular condition 6? >> we've had some initial conversations with the project architect on how they can evaluate -- how they can redesign the ground floor retail space to both provide larger group housing rooms and also to meet some of the goals of the active use provisions in the planning code. and we've also asked the architect to explore, you know, to continue to explore that subterrainian space throw this is concern that it won't meet building code but we haven't seen any revisions to date. >> supervisor haney: got it. okay. well, that's -- we'll ask the

project -- well, there's been a number of questions, and i have some questions about the definition of group housing. it seems that the definition is somewhat unclear and in some cases overly broad and up to a significant amount of interpretation leading to some of the things that have been asked for, having different understandings of whether it's possible. are there size requirements or restrictions for units that are clear? >> there are no size maximums and the minimums are dictated by the building code. the group housing definition does set itself up in for the

definition. so basically the definition says that it can't be a dwelling unit which is a room or a fleet of rooms intended for occupancy by a family. and that it can't have cooking facilities. this definition was further -- there was an interpretation following in 2005 that further defined what a cooking facility was for the purposes of, you know, implementing the planning code and enforcing the planning code. and based on practice at the time by the planning department for allowing limited cooking facilities within their rooms, that interpretation also added a cooking facilities component to the definition of group housing there are no maximum size limits, but as we -- as we continue to, you know, to -- as we continue to review these larger rooms and the stated

purpose of, you know, of providing these greater -- or these larger rooms is to create family-style housing, you know, we have to really interpret if the rooms are being provided, if they are group housing rooms or they're crossing the line into dwelling units. and it's been -- because this is a unique project because this is the first time that we have actually seen this larger group housing rooms, it has been subject to interpretation and we had to evaluate, not only the size of the rooms, but the location of the rooms, the amenities provided, and the layouts of the rooms, the cooking facilities, the rooms within the context of the building. so the zoning administrator considers a number of factors when making that interpretation >> supervisor haney: are there -- you know, i understand

that when they look at if the entire project is viewed as group housing, there are some questions that have to be analyzed with whether all of the things that you just described is more subjective in some ways, but given the concerns raised by the appellant about the need to include larger units, is it possible that a project can be mixed in a sense that it has a set of units that are group housing and meet that definition as you say it, as you read it and then on the other hand have some units that are larger and that you wouldn't consider group housing all in the same project? >> yes, the planning code does allow for a project to have a mix of group housing rooms and dwelling units. we calculate density by determining the number of units that are allowed per -- you know, for a certain amount of area. and so in the north of market

residential sud, the density allowed for a dwelling unit is one dwelling unit for every 125-square-feet of lot area. and the density for group housing is one group housing room for every 70-square-feet of lot area. so what you would do in that scenario if you wanted to have a mix of both, you would figure out how much of your density is taken up by the dwelling units and then you could apply the rest to the group housing units. >> supervisor haney: got it. okay, so it is possible to have more of a mix there if you look at the density irrespectively in different ways and then collectively. so i think that my other questions are for the project sponsors. so i will pass it over to my colleagues. thank you, president walton. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor peskin?

>> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton, and i appreciate the line of questioning from supervisor haney. so this may be a little bit repetitive, but ms. grubb, have you seen any other group housing project like this before? >> not like this before, no. >> supervisor peskin: and, i mean, it seems like -- and supervisor haney touched on thin an interpretation from administrator batner some 16 years ago that in some ways conflated the definitions of group housing as it was originally defined and a dwelling unit. is that a fair characterization?

>> in kind of discussing this with the zoning administrator, it appears that the interpretation was meant to clarify what types of cooking facilities would be allowed in group housing rooms. the interpretation also cites other letters of discrimination that had already been issued by the planning department which allowed limited cooking facilities to -- for occupants of residential hotels and so they could cook their own meals after the 2005 interpretation, we have applied that to the entire code. so we've applied that to the group housing as a type of residential unit. >> supervisor peskin: doesn't that undermine the concept and definition of group housing? well, why don't you define what is a limited kitchen? >> a limited kitchen includes a

small countertop, a small sink, and undercounter refrigerator, a microwave and two burners. and it cannot include an oven because that would constitute a full kitchen. >> supervisor peskin: yeah, this is the kind of stuff that drives us all nuts. and you consulted with the zoning administrator on the current design and he was able to confirm that this was group housing? >> yes. >> supervisor peskin: would it be fair to call it's a line call. >> i think that would be a fair assessment. >> supervisor peskin: and then going back to what supervisor haney brought up around the substantial amount as you went from dwelling units to group housing and doubled the number of units, but somehow found that

it was still substantially compliant with the original environmental document, and, therefore, grandfathered them in at 13.5% inclusionary -- i am befuddled by that determination and then further befuddled that a number of years later that they come back -- even though they have a much lower inclusionary rate and say that the project doesn't pencil. any thoughts on that, ms. grove? >> i would defer to the project sponsor on whether or not something would pencil. or the economics of the projects, considering the inclusionary rates in general. >> supervisor peskin: well, insofar as that is there a fundamental underlying argument why they want to abandon their cu and by the skin of their teeth got a cu that is the subject of this appeal from this planning commission. you independently determine

whether or not there are pro formas and their claims are true and accurate and supportable? >> we did not. we did not evaluate any performance. >> supervisor peskin: all right, well, i, obviously, want to hear from the project sponsor and those support of the project sponsor. but i would say as a threshold issue, no personal disrespect or shade on mr. batner, that his 2005 interpretation really perverted the definition of group housing and insofar as the current line call that is right on the edge, but has found it to be consistent -- no offense to the current zoning administratos part and parcel of what is before this body on appeal that we have to deliberate. but i do think that interpretation has been stretched and stretched again. and in this case arguably

stretched to the limit. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, mr. president, and i have a couple questions and i feel that i didn't leave the planning commission so i was in the commission in 2018 when we first approved this project. and correct me if my recollections are wrong, but i remember a lot of time and energy was spent when we approved that project in 2018. and, you know, back then besides the issue, the historic nature of the church, there was a lot of community input on the types of units with the community strongly preferring family units. and also, you know, the way, the conditions of approval. and so if i understand your logic and reading the

conditional use findings, i have to say that, you know, i am having a hard time with 7a and b. and it seems like you're arguing that, you know, beds are beds. so, whether or not this is family-sized units or group housing, you know, and the department sees it as the same use. is that what i'm hearing from you? >> sorry. so the finding -- i think that the conditional use findings -- you mentioned 7a and i'm just scrolling to that. >> supervisor melgar: the proposed location will provide a development that is necessary and compatible with the neighborhood and the community. and earlyer when supervisor haney was, you know, asking you

about moving from family housing to group housing, what i understood you to say is that the department saw this as the same use basically, even though it's a different thing. you know, it's 600 beds and versus 147 units and it's kind of the same thing? >> sure, so i do want to add a little nuance to that summary. >> supervisor melgar: please. >> yeah, for the purposes of carrying through a previous environmental review document, we -- we did find that it wasn't a change in use. it was a residential out going to a residential use. i do want to -- i do want to clarify that the commission did consider the change from dwelling units to group housing, you know, in major part because of the community feedback that they received about the need for family housing in the tenderloin. you know, i think that the commission determines that on balance that this is a housing

project at a density that is permitted by the code. that does provide affordable housing and, you know, impacts the community and benefits within approved building envelope, you know, kind of moving through all of the -- it provides space for the institutional use. so on balance the commission did consider various factors related to the group housing projects, but just for in determining whether we could carry something through, you know, it was realla resident -- one residential type to another. it wasn't presenting a new use at all. that was the point that i was trying to make. >> supervisor melgar: okay, i get it in terms of the environmental review, but it seems that some of us have been talking about the definition of family housing for a long time and how that looked like, versus, you know, group housing or, you know smaller units. and so -- i just wanted to make

sure that, you know -- >> yeah, of course. >> supervisor melgar: so the other question that i had -- which is actually a pretty big deal to me. and i don't know if it's for you or someone that we have here from the mayor's housing group, but the group housing consideration versus family housing units is pretty significant i think in terms of dollar amounts. so if you calculate the difference between a market rate group housing unit versus a subsidized, you know, sro unit, versus a family-sized unit to a market-rate unit, i think that the difference is pretty significant. in addition the five rent-controlled units that we are, you know, now being replaced with dmr, smaller group housing units, it's also like a pretty big difference in terms of what we are getting as a city from it. did you guys take that into account at all?

>> so we did the five units are all studios so we did take that into account that we would try to replace them at a similar size which they were existing before. >> supervisor melgar: they have kitchens, right? >> they do have kitchens. the difference in the kitchen would be two burners and an oven. and i would like also the project sponsor to speak to the existing units as well. but generally speaking, you know, we are aiming for comparability in size and number of bedrooms. and to your question about whether or not -- i can ping someone from there right now but we have -- we have started conversations before about how -- what the affordable rents would be if they were, you know, for these larger family-sized units. this is the first time that

we've ever seen a project like this. and so the code is very clear about how to price or how to set rental rates for an sro or a group housing room and that was established when the supervisor passed legislation to apply inclusionary to group housing. and that the rent is 75% of a studio. what we still need to work through is how does that translate to a larger room. you know, that is still technically a group housing room, but also provides more -- more floor area for the household that would occupy that room. >> supervisor melgar: okay, i don't know that you answered what i was asking but thank you >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. i would just -- you know, i find

myself repeating supervisor peskin's statements like interpretation is stretched to the limit, befuddled. i like that word. and i am -- i am just trying to understand one of the reasons that we're here today because i do want clarity and i know that you answered this question or have been asked this question more than once. but we're here and the determination was because it was deemed similar residential use. but are we admitting that it's definitely not a similar project? >> so i think there's two pieces, right? there's -- does this project -- is this project significantly different in the size of the building that it is proposing and the mix of uses that it is proposing. >> president walton: yes. >> and so that's -- that has

implications for the inclusionary rate specifically and also environmental review. and so -- and i'm sorry, the environmental review also has implications on the -- on the inclusionary rate. and so we -- for the purposes of determining the planning review process, and how we are going to approach the project, what requirements we are going to subject the project to, you know, does the project need a completely new environmental impact report, or does the old one suffice and we can just document the changes to the project? you know, i think that's where we found that the project was in substantial conformity, because the building massing was very similar, and because the mix of uses that was proposed was residential and institutional

and retail for both projects. there is a significant difference, obviously, with the dw number of dwelling units that can fit within the envelope and the number of group housing rooms that can fit within the envelope. and so i think that's the nuance where there's a piece of this determination that kind of gives us the path forward for review and for inclusionary. but we are -- you know, we are -- the planning commission still needed to evaluate the different project scope that proposed 316 residential units, you know, residential rooms, instead of 176 dwelling units. so it still did require oversight by the planning commission. i hope that answers your question. please let me know if it doesn't. >> president walton: no, i mean, i definitely appreciate you coming on and attempting to try to make some of this make sense, at least to me.

but we know that it's almost doubling in size. we know that there's a dramatic decrease in the affordable units. we know that inadequate necessity, we know that people have had some level of excitement about the project initially. and so i'm just -- i mean, this is not really a question, and i'm just really trying to wrap my head around, again, i think the interpretation stretched to the limit. and so it's just hard for me to understand the commission's ruling on that particular part of our -- part of the project. i don't see anyone else on the roster. thank you, carly. now we will call up the project sponsor to speak for up to 10 minutes. we have david murray, richard henon and alexander tucker and david senat, and latisha moore

and dave zucker and maria. and i'm not sure who is going to speak on behalf of the project sponsor? >> supervisors, my name is ella strong and i'm the president of the executive board of the church of christ scientists, project sponsor. may i speak? >> president walton: yes, you may. thank you. >> much has already been said about our proposed housing development and our church has been largely left out of the conversation. so people may not realize is that our right to be able to engage in a religious exercise is at stake here. if this appeal is granted, our church will be blocked from engaging as just mentioned.

we cannot meet our religious needs in our current church building. the proposed new church facility is essential for us. we require too have a church building that is welcoming and accessible to all who wish to enter. and it must be a refuge to those seeking solace. our church may be an expression of god's welcoming love. our current building is the antithesis of a welcoming church. the church is oversized concrete building that is in a blighted street front and regularly there is drug use and violence in front of the church. tents encampments often block the front and side entrances. this severely limits our access to the church by those seeking to enter. garbage, human excrement, used

hypodermic needles must be cleaned up by the church members. and people have been assaulted and subject to racial slurs while cleaning the area in front of the church. a church member's car was recently attacked while she was in it. individuals splicing the power cord in front of the church recently causeda fire. a fire. this has resulted in a significant reduction in our church attendance. i note that many calls to the city agencies seeking help for those in need in front of our church have been largely ignored. the new project was would replace the current structure with a new church building, the design of which will be welcoming, light-filled human scaled to reflect the church's spiritual mission of creating an

atmosphere of light, warm, and healing. of critical importance, the 316 new housing units included in the proposed development would provide much-needed animation and the flow of the people to the area, eliminating the unsafe conditions for our members. this will remove barriers to access for church members and allow for an atmosphere with the church's mission. it is also essential to our religious practice that we have a christian science reading room that is open to the public. our current facility cannot accommodate one. a reading room is an integral part of our denomination and mandated by our church's by-laws. a reading room is a neighborhood sanctuary where any individual can find hope, comfort and healing. our church cannot fulfill its

mission without a reading room. the proposed church building will have a reading room which will serve as a daily active presence in the neighborhood and allow the church to fulfill this critical component of our religious mission. and another requirement for our church is to have a sunday school for children. seen in front of the church discourages any parent from bringing their child into the building through the unsafe and unsanitariy conditions. our new church will welcome the sunday schoolchildren to a light-filled space designed just for them, fulfilling an essential part of our mission. and let me say that granting this appeal would prevent our church from engaging in our religious exercise in accordance with our mission. the planning commission approved our project in june, finding that it met all of the eligible

elements of the general plan, planning code, and of the underlying group of occupancy zoning is a principally permitted used in our district. recommendations from the hearing have already been agreed to with planning and we continue to implement them. the applicants claim that there's a lack of community outreach and dialogue is simply false. between december 2020 and august 2021, the project team held 48 stakeholder meetings, three canvassing events -- >> clerk: just under five minutes remaining. >> four community-wide meetings and placing over 300 calls and emails to stakeholders. it is in response to the input from the community and planning commission that we have made significant revisions to the project plans. appellant claims of lack of community outreach has no basis in fact. the appeal cannot be granted on

that basis. appellant arguments that the project with the tenderloin community is also without merit and cannot be the basis on which to block our new church. proposed new church and housing development will enhance the neighborhood and enabling us to engage in our religious exercise, bringing healing to the neighborhood and eliminating blight on our block. and providing much-needed housing to essential workers. there is no lawful basis on which to grant this appeal. granting this appeal would violate the church's federal civil right under the federal religious land use and institutional persons act law and the constitution. san francisco is a city devoted to civil rights, diversity, and our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. the implications of this appeal are much larger than many people realize and they will impact both our civil rights of all communities of faith.

please, have the courage to do what is right and what is legal and vote to deny this appeal. please uphold the planning commission's approval and allow our church to build. we have other presenters that would like to answer some of the questions, but i would just like to say that we have since 2013 to 2018 to get our first approval and by then the developer lost the financing and was not able to finance the previously approved project. if the church is forced to go back to previously approved project, it will be a loss of the church. we won't be able to practice our faith. there were so many items of misinformation, i don't even know where to start. but maybe others on my team might answer some of those questions. patty, you have a statement also from this, right?

>> yes. this church and this project have the long-time and ongoing support of the san francisco interfaith council. >> clerk: you are muted. >> president walton: you're actually on mute. >> are we okay now? >> president walton: yes. >> i'm sorry. michael, the director of the san francisco interfaith council

sends this message -- >> president walton: i want to remind you that you're at a minute and 40 seconds left. >> the religious community will be watching this decision as it will be a clear indication of the level of the city's sincerity and repurposing the properties owned by religious communities to provide affordable housing. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, you still have a minute and 10 seconds left if there's anything else that you want to wrap up. >> if i may, richard hanlin. is there time available to speak? >> president walton: are you speaking on behalf of the project sponsor? >> yes. >> president walton: yes. >> yes, i am richard hanlin with development. i must say that we have spent years working to materialize this project for the church.

and i worked diligently with planning, the former planning director and the current staff and team to put forward this solution, utilizing the group occupancy housing. group occupancy is a unique program in san francisco that is now being looked at and emulated elsewhere as one of the most innovative approaches to how we deal with accessible housing. and we want to make sure that it's not lost in the process. i think that the biggest issue is that it's not talked about is that there were 292 bedrooms in that 176 units and there's only 316 now. and if not a doubling of the building, it's a change in how you count. and as it relates to who's going to be benefited in that count, we went from 28bmr units with no -- up to 48bmo units for those waiting in the queue.

there are a lot of details that have been expressed that are inaccurate from the opposition. and i hope that there's an opportunity to speak to those during the course of our rebuttal. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. and we do have some questions from supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: thank you, and thank you to the project sponsors and the representatives from the church. i -- i did want to just follow up on that last point that you made. what is the difference as you said it in rooms in the original project versus the current project? >> the way in which the project planning are counted are simply different. a dwelling unit with three bedrooms is allowed to sleep

seven by national standard. which is two per bedroom, plus one in the living room. when we convert that space to group occupancy, we count every single room, every space, and it's allowed to sleep two. and so you'll find that 176 conventional units is allowed a higher density than has been approved under this conditional-use permit for the 316 group occupancy rooms. another component of this that carly grove spoke to is that we worked with the zoning administrator to provide -- to create and to provide units that are substantially larger, and the new upper limit as defined by planning is 850-square-feet per unit. 850-square-feet in our very dynamic way of doing space will

sleep at least five plus and it's a fabulous space. so the technology and the way in which these spaces are built are -- are unique and they're different than what you have seen in the past. it makes for 51 of the most innovative projects for housing in the country right now. so i hope that answered how the counts appear different, but the square footage of the building is the same building. >> so in that sense what i'm having a hard time understanding is why you changed so substantially and dramatically the types of units. if it's really that you're having as you said it essentially the same number of people who are going to live there, except -- well, with a few dozen it sounds like difference -- and there were such broad support, unanimous

support of the planning commission and for that project despite having in today's standards a very low affordability percentage, where why did you make such a dramatic change to the project in this way in terms of the units? >> right. so the original purpose to have a lot of bigger units to try to eat up the -- with the limited numbers of doors that would be allowed under the density. so it generated a lot of larger units. a three-bedroom unit at 1,200-square-feet has an income requirement for underwriting of about $7,500 a month in rent as a market-rate unit. that has a requirement of approximately $250,000 in annual income to qualify for that lease.

and the underwriters of the original developers, one of the largest in the country, were unable to find any underwriting that would support that in this market. as a result it was unfinancable and they walked away from the project. we looked at the project as something that we'd be able to lease in the mid-market range, the missing middle, where our rent rates in the project go from a $5,500 to $6,000 average over the entire 176 units to an average of $135 in the average of building. this changes who could qualify to 100% ami or lower and that creates a very broad market of affordability for the general public. and that's the entire motivation behind doing it. and it is successfully been

shown that it creates a financial product. so that was the big motivation because in the end the ultimate goal is to create housing that people can afford to live in, and to build the church. >> can you speak again to the expectations of the cost of the units that are going to be built as part of this -- like, what size unit? and how much do you expect that it's going to cost for rent? >> [broken audio] if we do a range, it's hard to answer that -- there's two different groups of housing. the range of units goes from 350-square-feet to 800-square-feet. within that range there are different -- they're all treated identitically, and for this,

which is different than what was in the original 176 units, those rents for those individual units are discounted another 25%, making them substantially more affordable than they were before. because we're applying the 13.5% plus five to all of the bedrooms as opposed to each unit we go from 28 front door keys for people waiting for housing to 48 front door keys in the process. which we think that is beneficial to providing that many more people on the waiting list an opportunity for housing as it relates to the higher end price -- the higher end pricing -- once you're out of the bmrs, under the 176 units, and it automatically goes to

$7,000 a month. the way that our units are configured -- i forget the exact numbers but they're somewhere below $5,000 a month at the upper end. which is why we have an average of only $3,500 for all of the units combined. . i don't know if that answered your question. >> so for all of the units combined it's $3,50 for the current proposal? >> yes. >> got it. and then -- i just asked a question of planning that -- about whether there could be a mix of group housing and other types of units and -- >> right. >> we had spoken about that and there was some understanding on your part that wasn't actually allowed, is that something that you can -- >> no, i actually -- just to clarify if i may. in march, we proposed a blended

solution to approach this. it's not uncommon. it's unusual, but it's not totally uncommon. the problem here is one of the other rules and that is that we proposed to combine units and to create a separate component of -- although it doesn't sound significant, two very much larger units that would be dwelling units. we can't as the developer simply set those aside as bmrs, which is our proposal. because the planning interpretation is that in order to provide two, we would have to provide 14 market units of the same size which cannot be financed in any market that we're aware of. so we are financially from building the great big market rate units, which aren't

affordable to anybody who is in the tenderloin, and become a very gentrifying process, so that we can provide a handful of units as was in the 176 unit project. at 28 units, there were only a handful of larger units, most of which we accommodated with the zoning administrator's help to expand the size of our occupancy. i think that the group occupancy interpretation is a category, but it's not a quality of product. these are probably the highest quality buildings for housing that are being built or proposed in the city. and, certainly, they carry the highest level of modern technology. >> thank you. i just want -- i think that i'm done with my questions. i do want to just say, you know, i fully respect and appreciate and i support the right of the church.

(please stand by)

>> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor haney. i don't see any other supervisors on the roster, so madam clerk, we are to invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. as i mentioned earlier, the telephone number is streaming on your screen. when you dial in, enter the meeting i.d. and press pound twice. you will be connected to the --

operations, let's hear from the first caller. welcome, caller. >> so i'm here not just to necessarily support or not support this project, i'm supporting housing, and let me quickly just hone in on what the supervisor just said. that does not describe the neighborhood i've lived in for 35 years. that was a little bit disrespectful to us, so i wanted to say, i support housing. i support very unconventional housing, creative housing, and unique housing. you know, as we talk -- i'm in

the awkward position. there was dozens of people opposing this housing, and most of them are my friends, my neighbors, and people i work with almost every day, so i'm in an awkward position, but i will always stand on my own for additional housing. there's 600 people in the queue here that would say right now i don't care how the architectural function of it, that gives me a place to live that i'm not living in already, so that's the most important part to me, and the thing is about this housing is that we're opening spots for more people. and what's going to happen? i've been doing this for a lot of years, the developer is going to say, the health of this project, they're going to leave this the same way for the next five or six years, so what happens to those 600 people? i'm not supporting any particular developer.

the developer is kind of weird folks that i wouldn't normally have dinner with, but in this case, it's providing housing for 600 people that normally would not have a place to live. and are we about diversity? yeah, they may be a little different than most of our residents, but these aren't people from twitter or bank of america coming in. hopefully, they'll be people working at burger king or mcdonalds -- >> clerk: sir, i know you've been waiting to comment, so thank you for your patience. operations, i understand we have six callers in the queue who are ready to make their comment in support of the project or against the appeal, but we also have about 30 who are listening in the queue. if you are listening in the queue and you'd like to provide testimony on this particular side in support of the project,

you should press star, three now. operations, let's hear from our first caller or next calmer, please. >> i oppose this appeal. this appeal makes no sense. >> clerk: all right. thank you for your comments. operations, can we have the next caller, please. >> my name is chris fraley. i wanted to call your attention to a document that i submitted in support of the project. this was -- i wrote a letter to mr. hillis in may, giving an analysis of why the units that

were previously approved were not feasible. supervisor haney, you should have it in your packet, and i go through a details analysis of the financing. each unit would cost roughly $1.2 million to build. richard went into this to some extent, and in order to secure the financing, the market rate would have to be almost $8,000 a month and only be affordable to those earning 314,000. a lot depends on the size, richard, and my math was a little bit different, but you can see how we arrived in the letter. it's important to note that the previous developer, really, one of the best wealth luxury

developers, failed to obtain the financing. our new plan will dramatically reduce the average income that will be required to access the market rate units. it's extremely unfortunate to me that the local community groups are fighting for the gentrification of the tenderloin. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition in support of the project and against the appeal here today. i had previously shared our petition that included support

of the project. [inaudible] is absolutely necessary and desirable. there are a number of opportunities to build housing on land owned by institutions across san francisco, and i share the frustration. san francisco interfaith council because i worry the city is going to lose out on opportunities to build housing of all types on congregation land. similar to mr. seymour's comments earlier, i know the opponents of this project are not antihousing or antidensity by any means, but there are a number of projects across the city that are not moving forward because they can't get financed, and what we have in front of us is an opportunity to build homes for people, and we ask respectfully that you please deny the appeal so that we can create more housing for everybody. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please.

>> hello. good afternoon, board of supervisors. my name is karen ponday, and i am calling in support of the design of this much needed project. i support it because it will create much needed housing and create a safer and more comfortable and inviting church and spiritual space open to all in the community to experience the spiritual respite from the stresses of every day life. i have studied the project plans, and i believe the well designed housing product will serve a demographic segment which currently struggle to find affordable housing. the housing currently addresses the need of working professionals and young families. i can see my students who grad

and young professionals starting families in the city as the perfect candidate for this type much housing project. the project itself has benefited from a really in-depth [inaudible] with the community. that engagement was a part of the process of resizing the design of the housing to meet the specific needs of the community. the cutting-edge sustainability methods ensure healthy indoor air quality and water and energy conservation. the wonderful amenities and indoor spaces allow the opportunity to build a

community. in your deliberations today, i encourage you to ask yourselves the question: will this project improve the dignity and spiritual safety and well-being of the community. the professional -- >> clerk: thank you kindly. i apologize to interrupt. we are setting the timer for two minutes. operations, can we have the next caller. we have about five in the queue and 30 who are listening. if you'd like to make comment in opposition of the appeal in support of this project, press star, three now. >> hi. i'm ramon, and i'm calling in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project. i would love to see it built as soon as possible. i find the arguments against it to be rather shallow. if the kitchen, if the sizes --

who cares? let the individuals who will reside there decide if it will fit their needs. we are in a housing crisis. our mentality should be yes, build a project, and let's move onto the next project and build that one, too. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> honorable board of supervisors, i am prudence carr, speaking in opposition of the o'farrell project which -- appeal. for several years, they have

been working to bring to fruition this project which will house people living in san francisco so they do not have to commute to their jobs. anyone in the environs will be uplifted mentally, spiritually and practically as they are welcomed tot church spiritual and reading room -- to the church spiritual and reading room. the mission of this church is to bless all mankind and injure no one. this housing project will supply a high quality affordable home to 316 families or singles, with 48 rentals below market rate and ample shared spaces for community and after-school supervised

activities. a spiritual understanding of reaching science reforms the law breakers, thus [inaudible] the community. it is the right idea for progress in the [inaudible] neighborhood and a model for churches in overcrowded cities worldwide. please support this project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i'll just state so that everyone understands how the timer works, you have two minutes. at 30 seconds, you'll hear a soft chime at which you'll be able to complete your statement. if you go over 30, i will interrupt you. thanks, everyone, for your patience this evening. operations, can we hear from the next caller, please. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is robert falkman. i live in district 5. i'm calling in to make one

specific point, which is the planning process is extremely broken. if this project is any measure of our success as a city and planning for future homes. the one point i don't think i've heard anyone make is i thought it took so long between when the original project was submitted and when the new project was submitted. i don't think anyone's mentioned it took five years to -- for the city to put together an environmental impact report and then for that to go through the planning commission process. it really should not be a surprise that the project would go through a dramatic change after such a long time waiting for the city to essentially say yeah, the project is fine.

it's really unrealistic for san francisco to even have an environmental impact review timeline. it's, i think, even more unrealistic to think that within the -- after five years, the same project will still be viable. the developers probably just wanted to find a way to keep the project alive after all the care and cost they've put into the project. the other thing i want to say is i think it's -- san francisco needs to have a conversation about why 1,000 units per acre of group housing can only be built in the tenderloin. why is it not possible to put this in the west side --

>> -- offers to the building, so they're not thinking of just themselves, they're thinking of

the community as a whole, and in response to people's complaints that it wasn't responsive, i know just since last november, 28 larger units were added -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. thank you for your testimony. we have 27 listeners and seven callers ready to provide testimony. if you are one of the 27 and you do hope to provide testimony in support of the project sponsor, you should press star, three now, otherwise, we'll potentially take this group to the very end. let's hear from our next caller. >> hello, supervisors. my name is bradley weidmeyer, and i am a resident of over a quarter century on the block that i hope will contain the 450 o'farrell development. i am in support of this

project. the church, its partner developers have worked with the city to do everything that was required for affordability and for the possibility of getting the building financed, and we are at a place where we need to get started. if the appeal goes through, we're back to the absolute black -- you know, a blank sheet, and it would be probably at least half a decade before this site is utilized as a home for the 360 individuals or families that can be in it as soon as it gets constructed with the plan that has passed the planning department with the very long-term care following the directions and the ideas. and it's very creative and a new typology. and the building that i live

on, up shannon alley, is now a -- entirely studio apartments, but when the building was constructed, it had numerous configurations of multiple units, so this building has changed over time. the city will change it over time, but let's build this building and get started right away. the church is an important part of the neighborhood and has worked with the community and keeps the street set zp keeps the economy -- set and keeps

the economy growing. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. my name is cheryl [inaudible]. i sent in a letter august 12, and i just want to go over a couple of things. i support everything in front of me that those folks have said in front of me regarding this project moving forward. we here -- it's duty bound to injure no man, and that's a partial quote from our founder, mary eddy, and we could not support any project that would endanger any citizen of frisk. this project's purpose is to bless san francisco. it's to bless the tenderloin. anyone can go to the church and the reading room. they don't have to live in the tenderloin. it's available to all folks.

when i do folk to san francisco and i do go to the tenderloin, i enjoy seeing all the different folks crossing the street and the diversity of this neighborhood. i can only imagine the joy of living close to where you work, not having to pay child care costs beyond travel times. because i was a retired social worker, i had to practice this. families can be more than just one person. it can be a grandparent and a granddaughter or a grandson. i want to thank you for this opportunity to speak. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> hi. this is steve marza. i'm calling in strong support of the project, and i would just like to say it seems like

an excellent project for the community. it's close to muni and b.a.r.t. we're talking about 60 b.m.i. homes. it's got lots of bicycle parking and no vehicle parking which helps the city get toward its goal of being transit first. it's environmentally friendly. it's going to have great community benefits with the indoor and outdoor space. it would really benefit this church which has been through a lot and is trying to rebuild. i just think this would be a great addition to the community, and i hope that you can see that, as well. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. all right. is there any caller who's ready to provide testimony in support of the project? welcome, caller.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. the project before you today provides a new church building that enables its congregants to exercise that which is right for the community and allows light and welcoming. it allows space for christian science reading room, a quiet oasis for prayer and study for the neighborhood, and in addition to the sanctuary for worship services, a sunday school will serve the neighborhood in an attractive space for sunday school aged children. the building does not fit today's needs and allow us to

actively practice our space. the needed housing will bring additional vibrancy and purpose on a block that has dangerous activity and makes it unsafe for members and neighbors to come and go. we respectfully urge you to uphold the planning commission's approval and allow our church to be rebuilt. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments this evening. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? >> hi. i am a member of this church, and i want to thank you, supervisors, for listening to all the previous appellant

supporters and the project supporters. i am inspired by the variety of what we've heard today, but i'm not inspired by the misinformation. the goal posts keep getting moved. if a magic wand were waved and another unit of tenant housing were build each time that wand was waved, we wouldn't have a housing shortage. what i'm trying to say here is this church would fulfill its constitutionally sanctioned mission. indeed, we've been here almost

100 years. i am appealing to your highest sense of right. think of the 316 units of housing, new voters. think of your duty to all, and thank you for your consideration. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i understand there are 28 callers listening and there are two in the queue. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please.

>>. >> yes. good afternoon, board of supervisors. my name is robin allen from redwood city, and this church is my home away from home. can't we all just agree, with this quote, the devotion of thought to an honest achievement makes the achievement possible, end of quote. this has been a 40-year-long effort to have a new church in this area, to remain on this piece of land, to be a beacon of light and hope to this area of san francisco. the devotion of thought for this project has been brought before you with much prayer, untiring attention to details, a willingness to following the

guidelines, unending patience to withstand the many projects. enough is enough. the current church structure really is unable to fulfill its religious mission and to really be a blessing. your no vote on these appeals and your support of this project can change history in this neighborhood and embrace so many people with with a new church home, housing, and a sense of community so needed today. please vote to dismiss the appeal so good for all may prevail. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. >> may truth -- okay. >> clerk: ma'am, you can finish your testimony. may truth -- >> oh, may i continue?

>> clerk: well, just -- i interrupted you. i thought you were finished. you had about three seconds left. >> okay. i just wanted to say, let truth, with a capital t, love with a capital l, and principle with a capital p, these qualities of thought lead you to the right action to dismiss the appeal and allow this project to move ahead. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. thank you for your comments. okay. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> yes, hello. i am continuing in support of this project, as i have for many years since i heard of this project. i am a resident of south of soma for 20 years. i stayed at yerba buena commons on third street.

i'm now at the paramount in the b.m.r., and also, i love christian science, i love science. over the years, i've gotten so many benefits for over 30 years, and i love going to have this local church here close, close that i can walk to, which, although, it's not an area that i like to walk to. as the previous speaker was saying, it's rundown, it's an encampment of people just out in the streets. it's dirty, and not a place

that's seemly. i never would go there except for the church, so i'm excited for approval to go and have housing. maybe i could stay there and have a spiritual retreat, so please, approve and support this project. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? >> hello. my name is john mitchell, and i run a nonprofit nursing and care facility in the city. i'm calling in opposition to the appeal and in support of this project, but i've been following for many years. everyone agrees that we need housing for essential workers. this 450 o'farrell project specifically addresses this important need, and if we can

agree to move forward, this project is sure to be one of the many housing projects for this purpose. you know, there's an old saying that a ship that waits for perfect seas never sets sail. there's no perfect projects, and by all indications, it's pretty close to perfect. it's well located, well designed, and reasonably priced, and by moving it forward, more projects and opportunities will reveal themselves, friends, 450 o'farrell, which has been approved twice, will not affect us as tax payers. it will have a positive effect on the tenderloin and the city. let's approve this once and for all so we can celebrate true diversity and gain more up to date affordable essential worker housing, so let's do this. thank you so much for this hearing today.

it's been very informative. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony this evening. okay. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? >> my name is sarah grossman, and i have been following this for the last couple three hours, but i've been following the project for a number of years, and i would like to speak in favor of it going through, and i also would like to attest to the character of the church members that are sponsoring this project. i know them to be of the finest quality character, and to the fact that there were aspersions

cast, that wasn't what happened. it's just a statement of the neighborhood past. i lived in the city in the past, and now, i live in portland, oregon. i'm familiar with housing situations of many different types, and i know that our city could very much use this type of housing situation. it would be -- this is a model for many other -- which i hope will be followed by many other cities, so i want to assure that anyone who thinks that the folks in the church have some -- or are anything less than very fine quality character and anything less than the very best for their community. that is not the case. they are not -- you can absolutely trust them, and i'm very much in support of this

project. thanks so much for your deliberations. >> clerk: thanks so much for your comments this evening. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? >> operator: madam clerk, we have no further speakers. >> clerk: mr. president? >> president walton: thank you so much, colleagues. public comment is now closed. lastly, i will invite the project sponsor, and you will have three minutes. >> hi. this is [inaudible]. basically, i don't think i need to say more. you guys have probably heard that the [inaudible] in the existing space. they're basically talking about the outset of [inaudible] conditions, which we all know

what it is in the tenderloin, but that's what they're saying, so they can still practice in the existing church if they want to, but the second thing i would like to say is, like, you probably heard from the planning department that we are totally baffled by the affordable housing and how it was grandfathered in. i personally would appeal to all of the supervisors that i don't want tenderloin to be a guinea pig to figure out whether this is going to work or not. i would like to figure out [inaudible] whether this project, and you've heard loud and clear, that many of the residents have said we need family housing, and that's what we want out of this project. thank you.

>> clerk: mr. president, i am pausing the appellant's three minutes. there is another individual who has his hand raised. i understand that michael schoenefeld is a part of the appellant list, and he would like to make some comments, with your permission, sir. >> president walton: yes. >> clerk: mr. schoenefeld, you may make comments. you have 1:40 left. >> i just wanted to say that

pacific bay withdrew from the appeal based on forge addressing our concerns, and i just wanted to put that on the record. if you have any questions, i'm happy to meet them. >> president walton: i believe we have heard from everyone in the rebuttal on behalf of that, so this public hearing is closed. as discussed, we will now consider whether to approve or disapprove the conditional use authorization as 450-474 o'farrell street and 532 jones street. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: i want to make a motion to continue items 37, 38, and 39 to the october

20, 2021 board meeting. >> president walton: thank you. do we have a second? seconded by supervisor mandelman. madam clerk, on the motion -- >> clerk: mr. president, may i ask mr. haney to restate the date? i couldn't hear it. >> supervisor haney: october 5, 2021. >> clerk: thank you. on the motion to continue the hearing to october 5, 2021 -- [roll call]

. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: and without objection, the motion to continue items 37 through 39 to the october 5, 2021 calendar. madam clerk, can you please call item 18? >> clerk: item 18, this ordinance authorizes the municipal transportation agency to set parking rates at kezar stadium parking lot and golden gate park underground parking facility. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to make a motion to continue this item for one week. >> president walton: thank you. there is a motion seconded by supervisor chan.

>> clerk: mr. president, there is a motion on the floor that has not been voted on. >> supervisor peskin: i will withdraw that motion. i understand from the city attorney that that motion is acceptable, but they have questions about the existing language that i was amending, not the amendment itself. i do not want to put words in the mouth of the city attorney, but that is what i have been advised. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin, and supervisor chan, i believe you're original second. you're okay with that? >> supervisor peskin: i will withdraw my original motion for the time being. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin and supervisor chan. madam clerk, we have another motion on the floor made by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor chan. >> clerk: to continue the item to october 5. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. motion to continue to next week's meeting is approved unanimously. [gavel]. >> president walton: madam clerk, we are now back at roll call for introductions. i believe we need to rerefer. >> clerk: yes. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes. i believe i forgot to give you an update on the m.t.c. m.t.c. approved $3 million for

the extension. also, earlier this month, m.t.c. took action to approve the transit recovery plan. this is an important plan that will support efforts by the agencies across the region. in late july, the m.t.c. approved the allocation of the first tranche of support funds from the american rescue plan, including $288 million for m.t.a. subsequent tranches will include funding that will be used for those transit transformation section plan items or other [inaudible] recovery strategies.

[inaudible] and finally, plan bay area 2050 is still on final approval schedule this year with a special meeting at [inaudible] we continue to voice concern about the need

for an [inaudible]. >> supervisor safai: -- as it goes forward in terms of the investment, but the biggest issue is dealing with the updated recruitment and hiring

of a new c.e.o. we should have some good information there. and finally, on the s.f.o. roundtable, congress woman jackie speier introduced several pieces of legislation, many dealing with the crossover of night noise in evening flights. i believe if we can get those through congress with the help of speaker pelosi, it will have an effect on south san francisco, bayview, west sunset, twin peaks. it's where the majority of the complaints have come from, at least for the majority of my time serving on the s.f.o. roundtable. we look forward to hopefully updating the passage of those

bills. thank you, mr. president. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor walton, mr. president? >> president walton: thank you, colleagues, and thank you for coming prepared to report on external boards and committees. just for the public, quarterly, we are making sure we present updates on what is happening on the outside boards that we all serve on today. i just have some updates on bay area air quality management districts and air quality san francisco and one in memoriam.

on august 30, caltrain expanded service to 104 trains per week day while simultaneously providing more robust and attractive service at all areas of the day. i and monique mouda and steve heminger have been exploring caltrain governance changes which accompanied our resolution to put measure rr on the ballot. another j.p.b. governance special meeting is this thursday at 9:00 a.m. i do want to add that members

of the sam trans board and leaders in san mateo county have been doing everything they can to undermine the process and demonstrated that they never wanted equity and participation in the j.p.b. counties. we as a board also recently approved caltrain measure rr bond financing. as far as bay area air quality management district, at our july 21 meeting, we adopted amendments to regulation [inaudible] petroleum refineries. the rule is now the most health protective and stringent of its kind in the country. we also have the meeting of our community about planning to address goals of a.b. 617, which focuses to reduce

exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. communities are working together to develop and implement new strategies to reduce air pollution and reduce impacts, and we also have a meeting with the air quality management staff, state and other city departments to discuss air concerns in the city, across district 10. and finally with regards to the workforce investment board, our meeting was the first to begin with an ohlone land acknowledgement. we also reviewed training strategies as the city prepares to receive workforce management development funds, and we did celebrate 15 years of city

build academies last month. our december meeting will feature an overview of our health care academy program, and last, i have an in memoriam for christina [inaudible]. as the daughter of eduardo and angelina velasquez. when she moved to california 11 years ago, she went into the specialized field of hospice on a whim, not knowing what it truly entailed. after being in the field more than a decade, she says i'm glad i took that leap of faith

because i truly feel i have found my calling, and i can't see myself doing anything else. she was truly passionate about nursing and served countless patients throughout the san francisco bay area in her career. during her downtime, christina enjoys hiking, wine tasting, puzzles, and spending time with friends and family. she believed in self-love, determination, and inner strength and was inspired by this quote. she believed she could, so she did. she is survived by her parents, her older brother, her sister-in-law, her nephews, and her loving seven-year-old dog. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. supervisor chan?

>> supervisor chan: thank you, madam clerk. today, my report is for my assignments outside of the boards, which the first one is the local agency formation commission, which i'm a chair of. this one is executive officer brian goebel's last month with lafco. we thank him for all of his work as executive officer and hope our paths will across again. we are working on hiring a new executive officer. just last week, our panel interviewed potential candidates. we are also exploring hiring a policy analyst to staff an investment working groups, so thank you to the clerk's office for giving us one of their vacant positions to fill this hole. the application opened on july 29, and the hiring panel decide to wait until our executive

officer's hired before proceeding with hiring a policy analyst as the two staff will be working together. lastly, this is sad for me. you know, at the july lafco meeting, cynthia pollock resigned, and we have an empty seat on the commission. we have received only two applicants so far, and it's the reason why we're extending application period for the commissioner to be open for another month to allow for more candidates to apply. so if you know anybody, please encourage them to join us. my second assignment's at the health services board. so you'll remember, colleagues, before we went on break, we approved the rates and benefits package available to our city employees. since then, our health benefits services staff has been busy

getting ready for open enrollment, which i'm sure some of you have received a package. we even have a video making fun of the fact that people just throw them right in the trash without even looking at it, so we encourage you to open it. and please remember if you want to make changes to your health care or if you want to continue your flexible spending account for health care or child care, you have to sign up in the employee portal between october 1 and 30. also, health care sponsors free flu shots for city employees, and the first clinic is next week in city hall, so that should be easy for some of us. finally, being on the health services board as the city is emerging from the pandemic has given me additional perspective about our city's recovery,

particularly about the populations that are most vulnerable and need the most support with equitable recovery. last week, i made the request of how our health care workers are serving our communities, particularly our largest provider, kaiser. so with the governor on the cusp of signing s.b. 221 requiring insurers to provide timely follow-up care on substance use disorders, we will be hearing more directly from community members and health care workers who have been struggling to seek care. and last but not least, i do want to make the pitch, you know, with that, that and that i am learning is that medicare for all man, we should really think about it. and we can push it on a local level to national, and the rest

i will submit. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: that is the best quote we've heard in here in a while. well done. today, i'm introducing a resolution urging president biden to extend funding assistance from the federal emergency management agency to maintain noncongregate shelter in place hotels through the end of the year 2022. as you know and we've talked about in this chamber many times, in march 2020, at the on set of the covid-19 pandemic, a shelter in place order was issued by the san francisco department of public health due to the need for social distancing. during that time, all of us worked together with h.s.h., h.s.a., and the mayor, established the first shelter in place hotel in april 2020 after a major covid-19 outbreak at a congregate shelter which

provided our city's most vulnerable residents shelter. since then, we have sheltered over 2,000 unhoused people, but these hotels are scheduled, as you know, to close operations mostly at the end of the year per the plan issued by the department of homelessness and supportive housing. the consequence of this program winding down before the covid-19 pandemic has gotten completely under control and also before we are able to effectively and appropriately transition people to permanent housing could put people at risk not only of contracting covid but ending up back on the street. we need the time not only to bring people inside at the time when covid-19 is still a risk, which is very much is, but also allow us to reopen our shelters safely, reopen other placement

options and allow us to move people from shelter in place hotels to other housing. right now, the fema funds are set to end at the end of this year, and this cannot be done fiscally without the help of the federal government which has been so key for us thus far. we wrote an emergency ordinance, as you all know, and this resolution is not speaking to what we will do ourselves but simply that we need to continued on going support from the federal government to fund this critical tool in the short-term but also for enough time for us to transition folks effectively and reopen our various other housing options and shelter options safely. so this resolution will urge president biden and congress to sustain public funding for this successful and vital tool in

addressing both the homelessness crisis and preventing the spread of covid-19, and i would ask them to do that for a longer period of time, which we know, based on the timeline, that h.s.h. and h.s.a. have reported to us, and we're going to have an upcoming hearing on their progress that will not, unfortunately, be wrapped up by the end of the year. we need time to do this safely and effectively, and it would be wonderful to have the continued support of the federal government, and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, madam clerk. i guess i'll start my statement on abag. i think supervisor ronen has updated you, so i won't belabor that. i will say i have joined the abag administrative committee,

which means i have been [inaudible] and getting to sit through hearings for each of those, which is time, a lot of time, but that's what's going on over at abag in my life. on tjpa, where i serve as vice chair, i believe at the last transportation authority, you all saw the phasing plan that staff has come up with and that sets us still on track to be submitting for f.d.a. funding prior to the end of 2023. we're also engaged in a hiring process for a new executive director, and i'm sitting on the subcommittee interviewing candidates, and hoping we get someone good. on csac, where i'm representing san francisco, san francisco

does not always send someone to, we had a csac meeting september -- early september. one of the things that struck me, and there was much that was interesting, including information on the national, i think $2.2 billion opioid settlement, but just going through all the counties in california and hearing their updates on what's going on there as they are beset by combinations of fire and plague, it made me actually quite grateful to live in a city where our infection rates have been dropping, and where although we get smoke, we're not worried about our -- at least until the earthquake, worried about our city burning down. i have a lot of empathy for folks in other counties who are dealing with that. now in terms of my introductions, i will submit a

couple of things, but i have a request for a hearing, a request for legislation, and an in memoriam. in the hearing request, this morning, i joined senator wiener to urge the governor to sign a.b. 110. contingency management is a proven, effective treatment for methamphetamine addiction. there are very few -- actually no other effective treatments that they have found, and so this is actually quite great, giving some folks a reward for reducing or stopping their use

of methamphetamine. the task force issued its final report back in october 2019, two years ago, providing 17 recommendations to reduce the negative medical and social impacts and risks associated with methamphetamine use. their top recommendations you may be familiar with, include the recommendation of a meth sobering center and the establishment of a nonpolice response for folks experienced meth induced crises on the streets. i think some folks here know that we've made progress on some of these recommendations and others we've experienced setbacks and have taken longer than we would like. for the first time since the medical examiner started reports in 2020, more people died of meth overdoses in july than any other drug. two years later, i think it's

time to follow up on the meth task force's final report on the progress we've made and the challenges we face. in addition to the department of public health, i will invite experts and community leaders to participate so that we can hear their perspectives on this important issue. i am also today requesting that the controller and city attorney draft a supplemental appropriation to the san francisco department of elections for the anticipated cost of the special recall election for the three members of the san francisco unified school board -- san francisco unified school district board of education. the signatures that could qualify this recall for the ballot were submitted to the department of elections on september 7. they're currently being verified by the department of elections, which has 30 working days to review them and determine whether they each

reach the necessary number of 51,325 signatures. if the signatures are verified, the board of supervisors will have 14 days to vote to hold an election, which would occur between 88 to 125 days after we vote for action, likely resulting in a special recall election early next year. the department of elections does not have sufficient funded in its budget to administer an off cycle recall election, which they estimate will cost $8 million. the san francisco unified school district would normally be required to reimburse the department of elections for a significant amount of the cost of administering the recall. the school district, which has not included funds for a recall election in their budget, is facing severe budget shortfalls, spending millions of dollars on this elections would add to their fiscal woes.

they anticipate a $112 million deficit next year. the district has seen a 10,000 drop in student enrollment this year, and -- as part of this appropriation, i want the city to cover the cost that would otherwise be the responsibility of sfusd so that these millions of dollars can stay in the classroom. i look forward to working with the department of elections, controller, city attorney, and you all on the supplemental as we receive additional information. and finally, colleagues, i'm requesting that we adjourn today's meeting in memory of albert leonard kovalic.

albert passed way peacefully on august 10, 2021, at the age of 100, with his family and loving caregiver, felicia, by his side. after finishing high school, al joined the civilian conservation corps, where his service ignited a lifelong love of nature and gardening. after the united states joined world war ii, he joined a company that built war time instruments in stamford, connecticut. he was assigned to the 15 army air force with the rank of sergeant and served as a tail gunner on a b-25, stationed in lecce, italy. he was awarded two oak leaf clusters and two battle stars

for his service. upon his arrival back in the states, he joined a forest fighting unit and met virginia carlson, his wife to be. after al's army discharge, they got married and moved to san francisco. he worked at ucsf for 30 years. in the early 1980s, al began caring for a piece of neglected city land two doors down from his home. al said the work in the park brought his great happiness and a sense of peace of mind. neighbors have named it al's

park, and it is a beloved neighborhood green space for residents and visitors. earlier this year, i was able to celebrate with friends and family and present him with a certificate honoring more than 30 years of work on al's park. may his memory be a blessing. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, colleagues. just on outside boards, i'm on the commission [inaudible] so i hope to be able to report on

precity college at our next opportunity. i'm also on the lafco, and supervisor chan reported very well on the recent work of lafco, and then, i'm on the abag housing committee and legislative committee. i did want to share a couple of updates on abag. updates that supervisor ronen and supervisor mandelman have referred to in our on going struggle with abag staff over the planned bay area methodology and growth projection, i did want to maybe speak a little bit more positively about plan bay area 2050 because it's an extremely important regional plan that members and the broader community have been working on. plan bay area 2050 is a comprehensive long range regional plan for the nine

county bay area covering housing, economy, transportation, and the environment, and the heart of plan bay area 2050 is investments that can be implemented in the bay area at the city, county, regional, or state level in the next 30 years. after over three years of work, this very ambitious and complex regional plan, as supervisor ronen said, will be considered for final adoption by the m.t.c. and the abag boards later in october. i did want to highlight the housing part of it because that's what i've been focused on through abag, and the plan barrier 2050 has housing strategies that seek to protect and preserve housing opportunities for all income

levels and housing strategies. i did want to note that these housing strategies had a cost of $467 billion and also 219 billion for housing development, so we have a lot of work to do to build the affordable housing that we need in the san francisco bay area, but one step forward that has come about through abag and m.t.c.s work with the bay area housing finance authority, and this was established by state legislation, a.b. 1487 that assembly man chiu sponsored and that bafa will provide tools to address the region's housing

crisis. and specifically, bafa -- or one key feature of bafa is its ability to raise significant new funding for affordable housing through a regional revenue ballot measure, and this was seriously considered from november 2020 but was put on hold after polling indicated that it would be hard to pass in the middle of the pandemic, but bafa continues to research funding strategies, and this is an important development that has come about through abag and m.t.c.'s funding strategies. and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you. i will report on my outside

commissions. at the september 24 meeting, we approved the report from the finance committee of the district, and like the m.t.a. and b.a.r.t., the district has seen some recovery along with having received a federal funding to makeup for some of the income that was lost during the pandemic. however, we're not where we're supposed to be in terms of ridership, but like the report that we received from the m.t.a. this morning, the district has seen an increase in ridership on the weekends

but not the weekdays, which indicates a lot of folks still have not come back to the office. we also have set a public hearing for october 18 that's going to look at bicycle safety on the bridge because of reports of folks being injured on the bridge. i will also report on my involvement on the first five commission. as i have reported previously, we are as a city merging the

functions of first five in the office of early care and education, so we are seeing an influx of income from baby prop c, and right now, we are planning for the future of child care in our city, and it is not just an issue of the total slots of child care that we have, but really, the governance, the structure of how we are going to have this very important war continue into the future and provide the early education opportunities that children will need to be successful in k through 12 in our city. there is a great disparity between black and latino children and everyone else in our city, which sets them off

at a disadvantage by the time that kids get to preschool and kindergarten, so the committee right now has engaged a strategic planning consultant, and we are in the process of sitting a committee of folks in the early care education world who will work with a consultant in mapping out a strategic plan for what the program will look like, what we will invest baby prop c in, and how we will structure the work in terms of governance and fiscal oversight in the future, so i am happy to report that i am on that strategic planning committee and will be reporting to you all for the work on this committee. and finally, i have a hearing request at our c.t.a. meeting.

i would like to request a hearing, along with our cosponsors, supervisor mandelman and supervisor mar, to dive deep on issues of service, coverage, and frequency for the restoration of muni. in policy decisions balancing coverage, service frequency, and geographic equity. i want to dive deep on how the decisions that we're making are consistent with our housing element, access and basic service to west side residents, to seniors, people with limited mobility, and those areas with low ridership prepandemic, because i believe that the decisions that we make prepandemic and even temporarily do set us up for patterns of development where future residents and current

residents decide to move or live to as we shape our city, so thank you so much. i look forward to collaborating with you all when we hear those issues, and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. first, mr. president, as you requested, i will speak to my two outside duties. i serve on the bay restoration authority, which, as you recall, is the passage of measure aa several years, which generated about $25 million a year. it is a seven-member body that meets quarterly. it is staffed by staff to the california state coastal conservancy. the director, sam shuckett,

recent retired, and they are looking for a new executive director. the last meeting was on june 18, where we talked about the equitable geographic distribution of funds as well as the environmentally just distribution of funds. our next meeting is on october 15. we have a very robust advisory committee that, together with staff, vets proposals for funding that is not only about restoring the bay but is about climate and sea level rise adaptation and preservation of our natural habitat. i also serve on the bay area conservation commission, which is a 27-member body, with one member from each of the nine bay area counties. i serve on behalf of san francisco county and supervisor

stefani is my alternate. thank you to supervisor stefani for attending the august meeting. the commission meets once or twice a month, and sometimes there are san francisco specific issues. in may, we received a briefing on the history and policies of the san francisco waterfront special area plan. in june, we were briefed on the port of san francisco's mixed use development proposal at peers 30-32. no action has yet been taken on that. -- piers 30-32. no action has yet been taken on that, and at our meeting next week, on october 7, we will be hearing more on the historic climate ferry boat that is currently in stockton at pier 9 on the historic waterfront, which would include about .14 of an acre of public access. in addition, over time, bcdc has become an agency that has

been very involved on sea level rise issues on a regional basis, and it has been an honor to serve for most of the last 20 years. with that, i will get onto four pieces of local san francisco business. first, and thank you to the chair of the land use and transportation committee, supervisor melgar, for my hearing on short-term rentals yesterday, and in the wake of that hearing, while there was plenty of good news about the office of short-term rentals and their programs and supervisor campos, as the chief author, and myself as a cosponsor, made some significant changes to the

short-term rental legislation with regard to airbnb and the settlement, there were some discrepancies that the office of short-term rentals presented in october 2018 and what they presented yesterday both as to fines and fees that were collected as well as the number of applications applied for year by year, cancelled, withdrawn, or denied or what have you, so i've asked ben rosenfield to conduct an audit in the wake of yesterday's discrepancies, and we will do that formally, but mr. rosenfield has agreed to do that. second, i am asking the department of building inspection and the design review team that has been

overseeing the millennium fix a number of questions with regards to the installing of perimeter piles, which as we know, were paused in august after an enhanced rate of settlement. there's a number of questions that i'll be posing to them, and i want to thank and acknowledge the acting or interim director of d.b.i. for his willingness to involve additions -- additional structural and geotechnical engineers in peer review, but bottom line, i think that the design review team has been asking good questions, but frankly, admittedly as far as this nonexpert can tell, they've been getting the run around from the engineer of record, and so i'm posing

formal questions to d.b.i. and the design team. in addition to that, i was troubled by an editorial that many of you, i believe, read over the weekend relative to the difficulty that the fifth estate, the media has in accessing court records. i had a good and frank conversation with mike nguyen, the records administrator of sprifrk superior court. we have no oversights over the court, as it -- san francisco superior court, as it should be, and they are in the process of getting into the dawn of the 21 century as it relates to on-line availability of records as alameda county has already done, but i am introducing a

resolution encouraging transparency and availability of these on-line records, and it was disturbing that the public information officer for the court was so unprofessional in his treatment of a professional member of the press, and i would like the court to address that. last but not least, as it relates to city business, i have been informed that the old practice of naming things by resolution must be done by ordinance. to that end, i am introducing an ordinance to name the unnamed press room the barbara taylor press room and will be changing item 46 to a resolution of intent to pass said ordinance, and finally, colleagues, i would like to adjourn today's board meeting in the memory of charlie

starbuck, who i just saw a few weeks ago over on chestnut street. he was a long time district 3 resident and beloved public servant. he was born in 1937 in new york, and after serving four years in the air force, he obtained his masters in accounting from penn state and later a law degree from the university of pittsburgh and moved here in the crazy 1960s. according to an interview that he gave a few years later, one of his first impressions is, and i quote, something was missing in this city, and it was a real lack of street trees. in 1976, mayor george moss connie appointed charlie to the [inaudible] commission, where he served until 1981. he was one of the first members

of the department of urban planning, and he rarely missed a tree planting, and it's estimated that charlie personally planted over 8,500 trees in this city in this lifetime. not since john maclaren added more trees to the urban environment in this city. charlie was also the most active member to the presidio parks trust presidio steward program, which i volunteered for for 20 years. in 2011, public works befittingly made charlie the honoree of its annual arbor day planting of a signature tree, who strengthened the community through his work and volunteerism, and the city planted a cork oak in the median, which charlie named buffy, after the city's bureau

of urban forestry. charlie said, i'm a long-term bachelor, and i regret not having someone to live on after i die, but now, i have a friend on almost every street in the city that i will be able to look in on forever. along with the thousands of street trees he planted, he is survived by his brother, sister, and eight nieces and nephews. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, madam clerk, and i want to report on the state legislation committee that supervisor chan and i sit on and would like to recognize preston kilgore of my

office and cost votes on my proxy there. the committee makes recommendations to the supervisors on pending legislation that would impact the city and county of san francisco, and this is my first run through the legislative session on this committee, and the committee consists of a -- representatives from the city attorney, the controller, the treasurer, mayor jaez office, and board of supervisors. it's chaired by eddie mccaffrey of the mayor's office and clerked by rebecca peacock of the mayor's office, and i also want to thank the city's lobbyists who work on these bills in sacramento, karen lang and paul yoder. so the legislative committee meets once a month, usually on the second or third wednesday. our last meeting was september 17, and the committee will be

taking a break until december, when we'll be resuming meetings to prepare for the next legislative session. right now, we're all biting our nails, watching to see what the governor will sign and what the governor will veto. i took this occasion of giving this report to do sort of an unofficial tally with the help of the folks in the mayor's office and our spreadsheets on this, and it looks like we've been -- the committee and a lot of us have been tracking approximately 217 bills this legislative session in sacramento. what struck me is how few of the bills we have weighed in on have in fact been signed by the governor. hopefully, that will change in the upcoming days, but the numbers are pretty dramatic. my count is 38 different bills in the state legislature. so far, only six that i'm aware

of, unless there's news today, have been signed. for those that want to check out the bills that we have supported as a state legislative committee, they are listed. i'm particularly excited by a. b-52, which was assembly member ting's bill to raise the fees that are paid to low-income jurors, i think a very important bill and appreciate his leadership on that. i do want to note there are some bills that haven't been acted on. the governor has until just 11:59 p.m. on october 10 to make his final decision. a.b. 43 is one that we have

discussed in this chambers, an important bill from assembly member friedman on traffic safety that would give more discretion to local authorities to consider safety of vulnerable populations when it comes to exceeding speed limits, something that's important to many of my colleagues. as i mentioned, october 10 is the deadline when we'll know, and just want to reiterate, as i've said in prior presentations, to colleagues or the public please reach out with any questions or if you want to elevate any particular bills. obviously, some of them rise to the level where they warrant a resolution from this body, but there are many more that are tracked in the state legislative committee, and always happy to have other bills on our radar, particularly as we enter into the next legislative session at the state, and the rest i

submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor preston. mr. president, seeing no other names on the roster, that concludes new business. >> president walton: thank you. i just want to thank colleagues for all their work on external commissions. this is an important piece of our work but devly time-consuming. madam clerk, we are now at public comment. >> clerk: at this time, the board welcomes your general public comment. the best way to provide public comment and to avoid signal delay is to listen by phone. 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d. 2484-179-5536. press pound twice, and you'll have joined the meeting. you'll hear the discussion, you'll be muted but in the listening queue. to be added to the speaker's

queue to provide your comment, press star, three, and when it is your turn, the system will send you a prompt for you have been unmuted and just begin speaking your comment. here, you may begin to speak to matters that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board but that are not on the agenda today, and the section of the agenda not heard in committee, these are items 43 through 50. all other agenda has had its public comment requirement fulfilled. each caller will have up to two minutes to provide public comment. as stated, we do have interpreters on stand by ready to jump in and assist any member of the public with their interpretation needs. so operations, i believe there are six callers in the queue. let's hear from the first caller, please. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, welcome.

>> excellent. david pillpel. of course, i very much appreciated the outside board's report. anyone who suggests that you as board members are not busy does not understand city hall or the various other outside boards and commissions and committees that you sit on, and that was an excellent report of all the activities going on. i was intending to call in support of item 47, the naming of the barbara taylor press room, but as i just heard from supervisor peskin, that's going to be redrafted into a resolution of intent with an ordinance to follow. just to tell a very brief barbara taylor story, one of her favorite lines that i loved was when she would ask a question, particularly when mayor brown was in office, and

he would say, oh, barbara, you must be completely misinformed, which generally meant that she was right on target and asking the right question, and mayor brown didn't want to address this question or the issue, so barbara is definitely missed, and journalism in san francisco has not been nearly as good in her absence. i think i'll leave it at that for now, and thank you all very much. it's been a long day. thanks. >> clerk: thank you, mr. pillpel. there are eight callers who are listening and three in the queue. if you're one of the eight and would like to provide public comment this evening, please press star, three. we would want to hear from all of you. operations, may we hear from the next caller? welcome, caller.

we can hear you, caller. all right. that may be an unattended line. operations, let's go to the next caller, please. we'll circle back to that line in a moment. welcome, caller. all right. perhaps we have another unattended line. is there another caller in the queue, please? >> linda chapman. it was with tremendous sorrow that i read charlie starbuck was gone. he was always a friend to nob hill neighbors, and i last time that i saw him, he was digging in the dirt down on post street with the founding members of

lower polk neighbors who used their own money to buy trees, and they were among the ones who left when they discovered the secret bank accounts and the purloining of other funds to go into the pockets of other members, and that leads me to supervisor mar's statements of the i.g. in the absence of an i.g., who does a person go to? i guess i'm going to be calling the aides of supervisors ronen and stefani to get a number of the f.b.i. i was given a number for the f.b.i. point of contact which a mid level -- by a mid level city servant who wanted me to report lower polk neighbors, but it turned out not to be a

very good lead, and there are several other things that need to be reported. first, department of building inspection. the chinese senior inspector and the irish senior inspector were dealing with me to ensure that they would be protecting the developer and the project manager who, you know, who gave a response to supervisor peskin's office that shows their complete disrespect for the board of supervisors and their staff. and then, there were a few other things on the agenda today. money going to the jewish home of all places. the san francisco police chief has still not done the investigation, decided not to, obviously. >> clerk: thank you, miss chapman. thank you. so we understand two callers left the queue, and we just want to state that if it was your intention to give public comment this even, he would

have to have pressed star, three, so perhaps you can try again, there were two lines that did not answer, so maybe there was confusion, so we want to make sure that we're catching all public comment this evening. operations, let's hear from the next caller. i understand that there are six callers who are listening. if you're one of the six, and you'd like to provide public comment this evening, press star, three now, or we'll take this last group to the end. welcome, caller. >> president walton, members of the board, my name is harrison beebe. i am here to call in favor of item 45, which is a resolution pertaining to afghan refugees. the last six weeks have been the worst of my life.

i've witnessed so much in the evacuation of afghanistan, and so i'm calling, really, gosh, to convey the support to welcome these new refugees into our country. many of these refugees have served in support of our armed services, our military. they've supported our american institutions, they've supported schools that have educated girls, so we have to make sure we do our very best to welcome them, and i can't think of a better place than san francisco to have a resolution to well

come them. i just want to note that san francisco is home to the largest concentration of afghan americans, so with that, thank you so much. >> clerk: all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> operator: madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, mr. adkins. mr. president? >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk, and thank you to the public for calling in for public comment. seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, we are now at for adoption without committee reference. >> clerk: these measures were introduced for adoption without

committee reference. a unanimous vote is required for adoption of these resolutions today. any supervisor may require any resolution to go to committee. >> president walton: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: i want to pull item 45. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: i want to pull item 48. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: i want to make sure you pull 43 and 44 together. >> president walton: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: item 47.

>> president walton: thank you. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: want to make sure i'm added as a cosponsor to items 43, 44, 45, and 47. >> president walton: so, madam clerk, it looks like we'll be voting on item 46, 49, and 50. >> clerk: on items 46, 49, and 50 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, and without objection, these

resolutions -- or these motions are adopted and approved unanimously. madam clerk, would you please call items number 43 and 44 together? >> clerk: item 43, resolution to urge governor gavin newsom to sign california state assembly bill number 701, authored by assembly members lorena gonzales, and item 44, resolution urging governor gavin newsom to sign california staten arrest bill number 62, authored by senator maria elena durazo, the garment worker protection act. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you. colleagues, last week, i send

the governor a letter urging him to sign senate bill 701 and 62. for -- these will eliminate obstacles workers working for minimum wage. i am pleased to report that since the introduction of these resolutions, the governor has indeed signed both of these bills, so these are critical to protecting our warehouse and garment workers and with that, i would like to amend both of

resolutions from urging the governor to acknowledging the governor. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan, and the motion to amend items 43 and 44 is seconded by supervisor ronen, and i don't see anyone else on the roster. i believe we can take these same house, same call. without objection, the motion to amend is accepted unanimously. and i believe we can take same house, same call on the amended items 43 and 44, and without objection, these items are adopted unanimously.

madam clerk, please call item 45. >> clerk: 45, resolution urging our state and federal leaders to bring in more at-risk and vulnerable afghan people to the united states, and that afghan evacuees and their families be supported in their transition to american life and granted access to significant opportunities and benefits. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, president walton. i had the opportunity to speak on this, but i wanted to thank the members of the afghan community who came forward what were key in bringing this forward. i do want to say that there were some very ugly things that were said by members of congress and other local and state elected officials about wanting to reject afghan refugees and actually saying

that their communities were being flooded and all of that, and i think in that context, it makes it all the more important that san francisco say the opposite, that we're a sanctuary city, but more important, that we welcome people that have fled war zones, that have fled central america and southeast asia and will welcome them and find ways to resettle them with love and compassion. i think that is our responsibility. so since this resolution was introduced, this challenge and the necessity of this resolution, and we are proud to welcome them to san francisco. thank you, president walton.

>> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. i don't see anybody else on the roster. i believe we can take this same house, same call. >> clerk: mr. president -- >> president walton: oh, different house. >> clerk: on this item -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are ten ayes. >> president walton: thank you. this resolution was adopted. madam clerk, please call item 47. >> clerk: item 47 is a resolution to name the san francisco city hall press room in i say current and any future

location, the barbara a. taylor press room, in honor of the legendary reporter barbara ann taylor, whose significant contributions to journalism and san francisco krisk life while serving as the kcbs city hall bureau chief for more than 30 years have set the standard for integrity and professionalism. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i would like to change the resolution to an amendment, and

i thank you, colleagues, for your support. i have to point out that when i put both of the memory ral -- memorial things on my desk, i realized that mrs. taylor and mr. delventhal died exactly the same day one year apart. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin, and i believe we can take these amendments same house, same call, and we can also move forward the amended item, same house, same call, without objection. item 47 passes without

objection. madam clerk, please call item 48. >> clerk: item 48, this is a resolution urging president joe biden to pause distribution of covid vaccine boosters to the general population and to take a leadership role in supporting the trade-related intellectual property rights waiver while promoting technology information transfer as it relates to vaccinations to low-to-middle-income countries in order to end this global pandemic. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, colleagues, and thank you for considering this resolution urging president biden to pause distribution of covid vaccine boosters to the general population and to take a leadership role in supporting the trade related intellectual property rights waiver while promoting technology information transfer as it relates to vaccinations.

i have made the amendments that i've passed out to you all that urge him to really just continue to follow the direction of the c.d.c. as more information becomes relevant. i think that's a body that's taking the same concerns that i have and what prompted me to author this resolution in two accounts. i also wanted to thank my colleague, dean preston, for teaching me how to pronounce immunocompromised. thank you very much, supervisor preston. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen, and these are not substantial, correct? >> supervisor ronen: yes, i believe they're nonsubstantial. we can vote today. >> president walton: thank you. we have a motion to amend item 48, seconded by supervisor

mandelman, and we will take the items -- the amendments same house, same call. and on the amended item, we will take it same house, same call. and the item passed unanimously. madam clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items? >> clerk: we do not. >> president walton: thank you. will you please present the in memorials? byeby