the hiring recommendations of the panel, and there should be limits on how often hiring individuals can serving on hiring panels each year. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right, operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. my name is cheryl thornton, and i'm a long-term employee for the san francisco health department, and i agree with the findings of professor gould. we talked about the e.e.o., but we haven't talked about the workplace investigations that go on that aren't race-based complaints. and often when these investigations go on, they don't check with the witnesses, there's no follow up, and i found that to be true also with the e.e.o. process.

when people file complaints, they don't do a thorough investigation. a lot of people get discriminated on appraisals, and then, there is no electronic employee records -- i mean, electronic employee files where all the information is stored so that it's transparent. and lastly, i want to say that we need change now because the long that -- the document that carol and [indiscernible] brought up today, in the department of public health, we have a code of conduct, and the employees sign it every year when there's a performance appraisal. yet, no manager is ever held accountable when there's a violation, so just creating a new document for people to sign

is not going to hold these people accountable, and it's not going to work. we don't need more language, we need accountability and transparency because workers are being harmed at the bottom, and we have very little voice, so thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hello, supervisors.

one recommendation from the gould report states that d.h.r. should develop more forms of corrective action that create action to create a greater emphasis on training employees, managers, and supervisors and also openness to discipline.

basically, accountability. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments this evening. all right. i understand there are about ten callers who are listening. if you would like to make public testimony on this committee as a whole for the independent equal opportunity report, you should press star, three now. otherwise, operations, please, let's hear from our next caller. >> operator: madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. atkins. mr. president? >> president walton: thank you so much, and [indiscernible].

>> supervisor melgar: i just had a question, president walton, because being a newbie on this body, i'm not sure if we file this. it seems that there are so many outstanding issues that are going to need follow up, and director eisen and her crew are fairly new to their roles, and i'm just -- i'm unclear about the mechanics of what happens if we file and if part of this goes to g.a.o. i wonder if you could really explain it because i think there are several issues that we need to follow up on. >> president walton: yes, ma'am, and thank you so much for your question, supervisor

melgar. we decided to have this hearing as a committee of the whole because when supervisor peskin and i called for a hearing, the mayor's office responded by having an independent audit and an audit on command, so this hearing was specific to the findings of this report. we still have a hearing that we have not set a date for that addressed all of the issues in this that we can put on the calendar at any time for, and also a matter that has not gone before committee to address this, so we have ample opportunities to bring this back for discussion as a body when need be. and thank you for your question because i think that's important for everybody to hear that. and i do just want to thank director eisen and all of her team, professor gould and all the employees that spoke during public comment, as well as the

public and my colleagues for participating in today's hearing at a whole. i think it's time for action. we've heard so many recommendations from affected employees, other city leaders, and, of course, our independent reviewer. and although d.h.r. is making some changes as a result of the report, our office is not completely so fared with what is being proposed, and that real employees are actually always being heard. we will go to the ballot to create the following [indiscernible] office of racial equity on all workplace discrimination cases, legislate the creation of an independent investigator to oversee d.h.r. claims of discrimination or legislate the creation of a

completely separate e.e.o. department, and of course, we're going to continue to do our work to find out what may be best for us as a city. i also want to work with d.h.r. to create a working group specifically for black employees on city employment that will be appointed by this mayor and the board of supervisors. i want to ensure that all e.e.o. complaints are properly investigated with adequate support and oversight, and that all employees are created equitably. it's hard enough being a person of color in today's society, and the last thing anyone needs is to be discriminated against and mistreated in the very place where they earn a living for their families. we are the best city in the world, and our black employees and employees of color deserve to feel that way. again, i want to thank everyone presented -- who presented and participated in today's committee of the whole so that we could realize equitable treatment for all in the

workplace. madam clerk, i do believe we are now back to our 3:00 p.m. special order items, 39 through 42. >> clerk: mr. president, i will state for the record that you did close public comment. operations informed me that maybe that your mic wasn't picking up, that you actually did close public comment. >> president walton: i did close public comment. i apologize, and i did file this committee of the whole. maybe my microphone wasn't on, that is correct. >> clerk: i and believe that the motion has been heard after you gavelled down. >> president walton: correct. >> clerk: all right. items 39 through 42 were initially called, to be heard

for the proposed 469 stevenson street project. >> president walton: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: i want to make sure we got the correct date. i want to make a motion to continue items 39 to 42 to october 26. >> president walton: thank you. motion made by supervisor haney to continue items 39 to 42 to our october 26 meeting. seconded by supervisor peskin, and before we vote, we need to take public comment from the public on the motion to continue. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. operations, do we have any callers in the queue? i believe there are six who are listening and zero who are queued up to speak. i will just state that the board of supervisors is taking public comment specifically on items 39 through 42.

this is the stevenson street project, the appeal of the final e.i.r. for that project. welcome, caller. >> hello? >> clerk: yes. >> yes. i just want to say in reference to the last item, e.e.o., that the board makes sure that there is another hearing regarding this. i didn't get an opportunity to speak, but i wanted to say i don't know if i need to e-mail supervisor walton and c.c. supervisor haney and answer the questions that they had during the meeting? but please make sure there is another hearing for the e.e.o. department so i can make sure

that i can say what i need to say. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i just want to make it clear for the commenters that we are only taking public comment for items 39 through 42, the stevenson street project. comments may be made on only that item. operations, do we have any further callers? >> operator: madam clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. mr. president? >> president walton: seeing no further public comment, public comment on this item is now closed. madam clerk, there's been a motion to continue this hearing to october 26 made by supervisor haney, seconded by supervisor peskin. can we have a roll call on the motion, please. >> clerk: on the motion to continue items 39 through 42 to

october 26, 2021 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. motion to continue item 39 through 42 carries unanimously. madam clerk, would you call our next special order, items 43 through 46. >> clerk: items 43 through 46 comprise the items for the hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the approval of a final mitigated negative

declaration for 530 sansome street. item 44 is the motion to approve, item 45 is the motion to conditionally reverse, and item 46 is the motion directing the preparation of findings. >> president walton: colleagues, before us, we have a hearing on the final mitigated declaration hearing. after the hearing, we will vote on the approval of a mitigated declaration hearing at 530 sansome street. we will proceed as follows: up

to ten minutes for the presentation of the appellant. up to two minutes for public comment, and up to three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant or their representatives. i don't see any objections to proceeding in this way, so seeing no objections, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. supervisor peskin, do you have any opening comments? >> supervisor peskin: i will reserve my comments until after the public hearing unless i have any questions of the project sponsor, the planning department, or the appellant during the proceeding. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. seeing no one else on the roster, we will ask the appellant to come forward and present their case.

you will have up to ten minutes, and i believe the appellants are ryan patterson, brian o'neal, eddie lau, and [indiscernible]. >> good afternoon, supervisors. can you hear me? >> president walton: yeah. >> first of all, our group has never been against or opposed to the new fire house for station 13. if you heard something differently, then it is not true, and it did not come from any of us on our current team. we were told by planning to conduct formal public outreach to our downtown neighbors, which we professionally completed for anyone to see and discuss with zero opposition. planning made us send out the sign-up sheets for everyone who

attended. we sent that to them. we were very transparent about our project, but our neighbors did not afford all of us the same consideration as we had to endure. since we are held to the highest degree and letter of the law in forming our ceqa determination, others should be, as well. we also have some serious concerns about the construction impacts to our building which wasn't fully investigated. just so you know, we're a small san francisco company, trying to do our best to survive in this town we were both born in and have always been

successful, even through these trying times by working with others and compromising on conflicting issues. thank you, and i'd like to turn it over to ryan patterson. >> good afternoon, supervisors. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> president walton: yes. >> thank you. i'm going to share my screen, please. it's -- if that can be enabled. it's not letting me do that -- oh, there we go. thanks. okay. thank you. this is ryan patterson, attorney for 447 partners in this appeal. under ceqa, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only where clearly no significant effects on the environment will occur. otherwise, an e.i.r. is

required. as a threshold issue, an accurate, stable, and finite project description is an essential component of an essential document. both the planning commission and the public were confused about the m.i.d. the two different projects here have very different environmental impacts, and the lack of an adequate, stable, and finite project description has led to a legally deficient m.m.d. and misleading ceqa analysis. a landmarking designation for 447 battery street was initiated earlier this year, which means that assumption can no longer be relied upon. although the appellants disagree that their building is

historic or landmark eligible, the fact remains that a landmarking designation has been initiated and must be accounted for in the environmental review. due to this basic flaw, the m&d fails to recognize historic resources in addition to traffic and safety. it also inappropriately defers the implementation of specific mitigation measures. like all of the studies for 530 sansome, the historic resource evaluation did not recognize the potential landmark status of 447 battery. 442 and 445 washington retain original brick work, ensure similar architect -- and share similar architectural features as the similar apartment

building. these features can only be finalized through the landmarking resolution process which has not yet been completed. without improvements, the 530 sansome project will apparently need to be redesigned with a transition zone, which has not

yet been designed and will not be subject to environmental review. without a final design, the m.n.d. cannot provide the basic safety. the purpose of ceqa is to provide information before it's approved and not to defer until after. >> the m.n.d. found that construction vibration may cause damage to the 447 building by inappropriately stated that impacts will be

mitigated by [indiscernible] project sponsor's consultant without input from the public. the m.n.d. identified the maximum vibration levels to avoid impacts to a historic structure at .25 p.p.v. yet every single piece of construction equipment identified in the m.n.d. will create vibrations far above that threshold. even the use of loaded trucks would cause .4 p.p.b., almost twice the recommended level to protect historic structures. the m.n.d. will not explain how the 430 sansome structures will demolish two structures, excavate 40 feet below the

ground, and use heavy equipment and trucks without these effects. additionally, the geotechnical analysis does not ensure that the 447 battery building will be protected during excavation and construction. geotechnical engineer eddie lau reviewed the project and determined if the 447 battery building is on timber piles, dewatering would cause rot and down dry loading. the plan to address these impacts were not specified in the m.n.d. and will be developed at some point in the future. the conclusions were confirmed by a second architect, robert

pike. we also note once again that the transportation study relies on a final feature program that fails to identify items that will create hazardous conditions. the m.n.d. violates the ceqa requirements. the m.n.d.s analysis and conclusions are all premised on the assumption that the building at 447 battery will be demolished which can no longer be assured to the initiation of a landmark building at