>> supervisor mandelman: i'm just curious because that process, that planning, that thought about how this property related to the other properties in the neighborhood, how the neighborhood fit together, what the land use priorities for that area is all sort of out the window if the building that's going to get built is more than twice as large as what that planning, that introduction at some point in san francisco's history concluded ought to be there. and i'm curious, and this maybe is an on going question, so the e.i.r. has to look at the on going consistency with the city's land use and planning, so how do you think about that

for these projects that are, because of state legislation, able to have -- to bear no resemblance at all to any kind of local planning effort? >> supervisor, thank you, through the chair, i will try to field this one. i think the issue we have is that this project is seeking approval under the individual requested state density bonus program, which is allowing the project to exceed the height limits that are established in this area. that said, the height limits that are around -- under the individually requested state

density bonus program are consistent with the zoning, and if there's further questions on that consistency, i would defer to our city attorney. >> supervisor mandelman: i am curious about that. i mean, i don't want to take too much time, but the 30-to-90-second version of how we deal with that because it seems wildly inconsistent. >> it's state law. >> supervisor mandelman: and state law says you cannot analyze that under e.i.r.s? >> no, under e.i.r.s, the section of planning laws and regulations, under state law, you're allowed to get exemptions -- >> supervisor mandelman: but we are free to analyze what those requirements are -- how they are inconsistent with our local planning, right?

it's my understanding that the e.i.r. did analyze the consistency. >> supervisor mandelman: well, it concluded it was consistent. it concluded there wasn't a significant impact. >> in general, they tend to be, like, more imbalanced, like, there isn't a consistent determination that's absolutely you have to [indiscernible] exactly, so that may -- >> supervisor mandelman: so, and i guess getting more ceqa-y, i'd like to understand more about the planning department's conclusion that without -- without analysis, that the question about significant impacts that the potential to significant impacts was not analyzed in the e.i.r., and that's based on the

fact that we don't really care anything about the buildings that get built on the properties abutting or in historic districts as long as they are not directly destroying in some way a historic building? is that the position of the planning department? is a 60-story building next to a historic resource impact the historic resource? >> justin goodring, through the chair. i would say we did look at that, but in this determination, we looked at the nature of these historic districts and determined that they are more linear, facing away from the proposed project so that the primary [indiscernible] are located on streets that are not immediately adjacent to the proposed project and that the building itself has some setbacks away from sixth street

and away from fifth street such that the immediate setting is not -- would not constitute a significant impact to the historic districts. >> supervisor mandelman: although it would seem -- and again, you're the professional and i'm not, but it would seem that a 30-story building far out of scale of anything allowed by the zoning code would have some kind of impact or at least would catch the eye as you're looking at historic buildings. okay. those are my questions. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i think my questions have been asked and answered. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor peskin, and seeing that there are no other questions, we are now going to

call up the project sponsors to speak for ten minutes, and we have lou vazquez, alexis pelosi, alexis francis, and amy hermann. >> good afternoon, president walton, and supervisors, i'm lou vasquez, the head of build. first, i want to thank the hard work of city staff to help us create this project and also the city members and residents that we've worked for the last four-plus years. the diligence that they've shown in moving this project forward. this is the right project for the right place. it's close to jobs and transit, it's providing transit for residents at all levels of income in the middle of a greater center. build has been working with the

neighborhood since 2017 that not only provides desperately needed housing but also provides community benefits. 40% of the on-site inclusionary housing will be offered preferentially to community applicants. it will include 40,000 feet of ground floor retail. half of that will be leased to the tenants for a dollar a year, the other, $1 a square foot, considerably below market rates. $500,000 for community programming, an affordable housing component, which was just referred to, and the

contribution of a parcel with the capacity for 15 to 20 in addition to that, somewhere between 143 and 148 permanently affordable units.

>> -- unfortunately, that is not the case. unfortunately, that is not the case. the de novo standard does not apply in this case, so the de novo applies in the question if there is sufficient detail in the e.i.r. to enable those who did not participate in preparation to understand and to meaningfully consider the issues raised by the proposed

project. the substantial evidence standards is set forth under state law in terming whether or not a ceqa document is legally adequate. it is the level of proof that an appellant must provide and submit to overturn a decision regarding an e.i.r. and its certification. clearly, there is sufficient details in the e.i.r. such that the substantial evidence applies as evidenced by the robust discussion that we've had here today, as evidenced by the comments made by miss petrin and as all of the comments that were submitted as part of the record. it's a question as to whether or not the conclusion and findings reached in the e.i.r. [indiscernible]. i know that supervisor mandelman just raised a question about land use and the capability of the project with the land use section. i would ask this board of supervisors to look at what the standards are in determining whether or not there is an impact, an impact on the land

use is whether a project would physically divide a certain community [indiscernible] that is not the case of what happened here, and analysis and information that was included in the record supports that determination. regarding the geotechnical analysis. as noted on the call today, we have maria [indiscernible] from langdon [indiscernible] both of which have mass foundations. in her expert opinion, a mass foundation is feasible on the project site, and that is what is being proposed today and that is what is studied in the e.i.r. there was a question whether it was part of the analysis

whether we have to comply with the analysis set forth under state and local code. if that analysis changes in some way, there will be stuff study [indiscernible] the project that is before the board of supervisors today includes a mat foundation and there is substantial evidence in the record to conclude that a mat foundation is possible on the site. so before ending our comments, and we're here to answer any questions that the board might have specific to the ceqa report that was prepared, specific to the project, i just want to remind the board what the standards are when an e.i.r. is found legally adequate. it's set forth under the ceqa guidelines. an e.i.r. is legally adequate when it is [indiscernible] to provide decision makers with

information that enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes into account the [indiscernible] here, that has been met. it has been met with the substantial evidence that has been proven in the record, which is based on facts, it is based on expert testimony and opinion, and it is not based on opinion, unsubstantiated fact, narrative, and that is what is being raised by the appellant. we therefore request the board of supervisors reject the

appeal and uphold the e.i.r. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. just to make sure you're finished. you have two minutes. >> yes, we're finished. thank you. >> president walton: thank you. thank you. do we have any questions left for the project sponsor? i don't see anyone, so at this time, we will invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal to call in for public comment. madam clerk? >> clerk: as the president just stated, the board is now taking comments in support of the project. the number is streaming across your screen. 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d. 2484-749-5194,

then press pound twice. when you enter the meeting, you will be in listening mode. to enter the queue, press star, three to provide your comments. we have 24 listening and four who would like to provide testimony. if you are in listening mode and would like to provide testimony, you should press star, three to enter the commenter's queue. we do have interpreters standing by, and if they do have a listener who is in need of assistance in spanish, filipino, or chinese. all right. operations, do we have a caller ready to present testimony in support of the project? welcome, caller.

all right. silent caller, we'll just go to the next caller, please. >> good afternoon -- actually even now, president walton. -- evening now, president walton and the san francisco board of supervisors. my name is daniel [indiscernible] and i'm president of local 202, and i represent approximately 40,000 carpenters in the state of california and 4,000 here in san francisco. as the president of carpenter's local 22, i'm here in support of build. we know that san francisco is becoming increasingly unaffordable in recent years, both to newcomers and long time

residents. this is a 27-story mixed use residential building that would replace an existing underutilized surface parking lot with 143 market rate units with 73 affordable. the proposed 469 stevenson environment has the potential to create hundreds of union construction jobs. additionally, the builder has committed to the use of a union contractor. the partnerships between labor and development are what allow us to retain an essential workforce of trained, experienced and local construction workers here in the city of san francisco. in conclusion, the corp. enter's union supports this -- carpenter's union supports this

development, and we appreciate your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? all right. perhaps that's an unattended line. let's go to our next caller, please. >> hello. my name is [indiscernible] and i'm a resident of d-9 and d-11. this location is a transit rich area [indiscernible] and additionally shape the future of communities within downtown and surrounding historical district areas heavily affected by the [indiscernible] kind of like shaped now currently and post covid. background on [indiscernible] the past five years. i'm originally not here. i'm originally from the central

valley. [indiscernible] i want all the neighborhoods of all income classes, even like similar to my background and my path to stay in the [indiscernible] and better of the two. i'm glad to see this commission has another chance to build more housing with this project, specifically for the 24% or 118 units that's [indiscernible] being affordable housing, that's really great. moreover, the small businesses in the surrounding areas can be sustained by these new neighbors compared to, like, the small contributions i have,

i'm trying to help out s.f. and small businesses, and yeah, i'm just calling in support of this project, and i'm looking forward to how this goes, and yeah, have a great day. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have about 25 listeners and about 11 callers who are ready to provide testimony on behalf of the project. if you're one of the 25, you should press star, three to get in line to provide your testimony. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. welcome, caller. >> hello. my name is freddy martin, and i'm a part of the mid market coalition, and i also work at the housing organizer with s.d.a., who is also signed on. that's senior and disability action. i'm speaking on behalf of

m.m.c. in support of the 469 stevenson project and the motion approving the certification of the final environmental report for the proposed 469 stevenson street project, and i ask that you deny this appeal. we've been working on this for a long time, and the benefits and what's available in terms of the affordable housing, it's something that we need, and i feel that it'll help preserve and solidify our culture, the filipino cultural heritage district and support a lot of community based grassroots organizations that consist of people that live and work in the area. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have about 14 callers who are in line to make -- to provide testimony on behalf of

the project. operations, let's hear from our next caller. welcome, caller. >> good evening, supervisors. this is casey [indiscernible] resident of d-6 and executive director of the demonstration garden, an environmental advocacy organization working with the p.l. and soma for 15 years. we are speaking tonight some support of the 469 stevenson project, and are opposing this appeal on the basis of the lengthy and successful engagement with the project sponsor, build, inc. that aligns with the interests of our friends in the tenderloin

and soma. please deny the appeal and allow this project to go forward. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. welcome, caller. >> good evening, supervisors. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. we are a housing organization pursuant to government code 65589.5-k. it's our belief that this appeal has no merit and the ceqa analysis done by the san francisco planning department is adequate and complete. this appeal is simply about stopping desperately needed housing and has absolutely nothing to do with the environment. please reject the appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. we thank everyone for their patience this evening. we have 11 callers in the queue. let's hear from our next caller, please.

>> hi. this is steve [indiscernible] calling. i'm a san francisco resident. i'd just like to say i'm a filipino san francisco resident, and i feel like the lack of projects like this of unaffordable projects is the reason why a lot of filipinos had to leave the city and live in places like daly city. we -- i think that this would add to the historical district, and i urge you to deny the appeal and support the project. >> clerk: all right. operations, we have nine callers in the queue. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, madam clerk and members of the board of supervisors. my name is rudy gonzales, and

i'm the secretary treasurer of the san francisco building trade council. we represent 32 different trades that construct the city's housing and buildings. unfortunately, we have some really dire numbers being released by the state, and as we see the landscape shifting, very few districts, i would say d-10 and d-6 are carrying more than their fair share of development, and there's frankly an equity piece to be discussed there. look, i'm not friends of developer, i'm no friends of lou vazquez. no friend of john elberling. people that i'm beholder to are the working class people, the 10,000 construction workers who pump money back into this local economy, and every day that

goes way, i'm more worried on it having the environmental impact on our community as a whole because they're having to live further out and school their children in neighboring communities and not san francisco at a whole. we hope you see this as an opportunity and not a war of the developers. it's a vacant surface parking lot, and it's outside of boundaries that the planning department did an adequate and objective analysis. we think that 500 units of how's with substantial affordable on-site community benefits agreement and an all-craft all union project are worthy of your consideration. we ask that you deny the ceqa appeal as politics not planning. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, i know we have nine callers in the queue and 24 listening. if you'd like to press comments

in opposition of the appeal and in support of the sponsor, press star, three to get in line, and operations, let's hear from our next caller. all right. we do try to circle back to the unattended lines. let's continue onto the next caller, please. hello. >> my name is mark nacy, and i've lived and worked in san francisco since the 80s, and over the decades, i've watched housing become more expensive while the city has implemented policies and practices that make it more difficult to create housing. we need to create more housing, a lot more housing. history has demonstrated that

the surest way to gentrify a desirable place like san francisco is to not build housing. 469 stevenson creates nearly 500 new homes, as the previous caller said, with a substantial amount of affordable both on and off-site, and it's doing this on a surface parking lot. it displaces no one and will provide housing for over 1100 people. this is an excellent proposal, and accordingly, please deny this meritless appeal and allow this project to move forward. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. all right. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: yes, welcome. >> hi. my name is greg young, and i'm speaking in opposition of the

appeal. i spend my working hours [indiscernible] every morning, i see how this addition of 469 stevenson would directly benefit the neighborhood and the plaza. this project will provide a positive foundation for the area by providing hundreds of new homes making as much as a quarter affordable housing and no displacement. they're basically repurposing an existing surface parking lot. also, [indiscernible] and have a significant number of basic parking spaces available. this also will transform the plaza by encouraging local developments and supporting local businesses. for this reason, i urge that the board support this much needed housing development project. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. we appreciate everyone's patience this evening. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. all right. we'll circle back to that unattended line. let's go to our next caller, please. >> hi. my name is megan, and i live in district 4, and i used to live in district 6. i am also speaking against the appeal and in support of the proposed housing unit at 469 stevenson. this is a great opportunity to turn a parking lot into homes for many san franciscans. so many of my friends have been pushed out of the city, so i'm excited that projects like this would allow more people to live here. i particularly love the inclusion of the eight five-bedroom homes which allow for more families and multigenerational families to live together in a central

location in the city which i know can be difficult to find. i also like the proximity to public transit, the inclusion of many bike racks which encourages friendly commuting in the bay area. it will allow many people to live close to where they work, so it would reduce commuting in the first place. san francisco needs much more density, and i am excited about this project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have five callers who are left in the few. if you're one of the 23 who are listening, you should press star, three now to get in line to speak, otherwise, this could go quickly. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please.

>> good evening, board of supervisors. my name is [indiscernible], and i am calling on behalf of the filipino community development

corporation or fcdc along with the soma neighborhood residents council. i am calling in support of the project and to ask you to deny the appeal. for years now, residents and organizations in soma and tenderloin that is now known as the mid market coalition have been negotiating a community benefits agreement with the project sponsor. a lot of time and effort went into the c.b.a., and it came out of a community center process involving community members that were not previously included in c.b.a. negotiations. the c.b.a. includes affordable housing, community spaces, funding for community programs along with other benefits. we believe that the concerns raised to the board in the letter dated october 25 are addressed in the c.b.a.

[indiscernible] san francisco people's organization, working fore equity and reform, the soma pilipinas association, the sixth street cleanliness and activation projects, along with other groups. please deny this appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have about two callers left in the queue. if you're one of the 24 listening who would like to provide testify, press star, three, otherwise, we're going to take this group through to the very end. all right. mr. atkins, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hi. my name is daniel. i share a studio with my partner in the tenderloin, and i'm just calling tonight

because i'm on dahlia every night looking for affordable housing for my mother. there's five units available in san francisco right now. i know that 74 is not a lot, but one of those 74 could be mine. i beg you to not say no to affordable housing or to not cut it down. our families need a place to live. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hi. this is emily [indiscernible] living in soma. i'm calling to support the housing because we don't need shadow, we need somewhere to live, and that's why we need housing for the better of the community. for the better of the life, we need housing.

it's not the shadow. thanks. bye. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we appreciate them this evening. operations, do we have any other callers? >> hi. this is [indiscernible] in d-8. we have a housing crisis, not a parking crisis, so turning a parking lot into housing is an absolutely wonderful thing, especially with affordable homes, especially in a transit rich area so that people are not burning down the planet commuting from the east bay. this is exactly what the city needs, especially with the current board continuing to permit new offices that's going to grow the number of people that need to live in the city. thank you very much. please reject this appeal. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony this evening. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please?

mr. atkins? >> me? >> clerk: yes, welcome. >> thank you. can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. thank you. good afternoon, board of supervisors. i'm [indiscernible], a member of the s.f. power senior and the presenting the filipino community in south market and tenderloin. i'm calling to strongly support the 469 stevenson street project, and i would like to express my sincerest thanks for the project sponsor for

agreeing to provide this benefit to south market and tenderloin residents. my hope is you board of supervisors will strongly support, and thank you very much, for your great approval, hoping into a great reality. long live and god bless us all. [speaking tagalog language] >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have some unattended lines that we're going to circle back to. operations, can we have the next caller, please. okay. let's go to our next line, please. thank you, mr. atkins.

let's go to our next line. >> operator: madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. mr. president? >> president walton: thank you. i want to thank everyone for calling in to offer their comments. seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed. we will now invite the appellant up to present a rebuttal argument, and you will have up to three minutes. miss holly or mr. elberling, are you here? >> mr. elberling is going to handle the rebuttal. he should be present here. >> president walton: mr.

elberling, are you here? >> clerk: mr. president, we understand that mr. elberling is logged in, and he can unmute himself and begin his three-minute rebuttal. >> president walton: okay. >> thank you, supervisors, again, for your attention and really diligent work on this so far. there are two problems. first, the -- when the department staff decided to scope the seismic analysis out of the e.i.r., they took away the commission's ability to ever require piles in this project as a mitigation assisted impact. that is how this process broke down as a legal matter. they would have -- if they had allowed it, they would have had a debate. the developer would have had their expert, we would have had our expert, and the commission

would have determined whether or not it would have allowed it. you don't have that ability today because that was not what was done. the agreement and promises they got from the developer are really trivial if not outright fake. there's only that $1 million of funding for actual community benefits. there's nothing that a one-year temporary agreement to lease an existing s.r.o., there's nothing to mitigate the project's environmental impacts in that agreement. there's nothing in that agreement to protect the mint mall. there's nothing in their inclusionary housing agreement that says we'll use that for the mint mall. there's nothing to protect the

people in the mint mall from being displaced in the future because this 469 stevenson project is going to trigger, in the next big boom, a wave of gentrification on sixth street, and the mint mall will be target number one, we urge you to please uphold our appeal, protect the mint mall, protect sixth street, protect our neighborhood's future. thank you. >> president walton: thank you. thank you to the appellant, and we have heard this hearing, and so this public hearing has been held and is now filed. as previously discussed, we will now discuss whether to deny or grant an appeal at 469 stevenson street project. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: okay. thank you, president walton,

and i did have some questions -- i want to thank colleagues for addressing some of the more technical issues, including, in particular, the seismic issues, and i also think i concur with supervisor peskin's analysis of the standard by which we're reviewing this, which i think was misstated as a substantial evidence test and as was stated by supervisor peskin, whether the e.i.r. is sufficient or not on its face. but i did want to follow up, and i will start by saying i'm not sure that this is the key issue in an appeal, but there's been so much talk about some items here on the issue that the appellant raised regarding the gentrification and regarding displacement that i wanted to get a little clarity

on this. i'm -- i must say i'm baffled that, in 2021, given the experience in this city in low-income neighborhoods, that we still see assertions such as there is no evidence to support the argument that new market rate development causes gentrification or displacement. i find that a remarkable statement. i wanted to drill down on it a little bit and better understand where it's coming from. it is one thing to acknowledge that there may be different views in the literature, but i would like to hear from -- i guess, first, through the president, to planning department, is that the position of the city? is that -- of the planning department or is that just a reference to some of the referenced literature? >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor preston. planning? >> yes, supervisor preston,

through the chair, jessica rage, planning department staff. what we have summarized is the result of a project specific analysis that was conducted on potential socioeconomic effects that could result from the proposed project. during the draft e.i.r., we received comments and concerns that this project would result in gentrification and displacement, and based on those comments, we went ahead and had a project specific analysis conducted that looked at rent in the area as well as summarized the literature, the more recent literature on this topic. and one thing to note is that socioeconomic impacts in and of themselves are not requirements

under ceqa. so what we looked at is whether or not there could be physical secondary impacts as a result of physical gentrification caused by the project. so in this case, studies concluded that there would not be gentrification and displacement beyond those disclosed in the e.i.r. -- gentrification and displacement that could result in environmental impact beyond those described in the e.i.r., and i do believe we have the authors of those reports -- or that report if you have further questions. >> supervisor preston: yes, thank you, i do have further questions. when you say in response to the comments, we, which i assume is meant to be the planning department had a study done, isn't it more accurate that build, inc. hired a.r.h. urban and economics to prepare a

study? >> it is correct that build, inc. is the one who has paid for the study, but like all ceqa analyses that are done, we have a -- the project sponsor is the one who paid -- ultimately paid for the study to be done, but that scope of work is reviewed, and the work is directed by planning department staff, and we have a number of things in place to ensure objectivity and -- fire walls, if you will, to make sure that we are directing -- properly directing the work of the consultant. >> supervisor preston: can you describe what you do to direct the work of the consultant? because what i see in the record is a letter from the a.l.h. economics to build, inc. , here's your report.

so it's not to the planning department, so they paid for the work, so what's the role and oversight of the planning department? and let me just say, it's, like, the idea that a market rate developer hires the entity that then is going to render a judgment whether their market rate development causes gentrification or displacement i think is pretty obviously problematic on its face, but what does planning department do to ensure that this is an objective analysis? >> so we -- as i mentioned earlier, we direct or we review the scope of the work, we direct the work that will be done, and we ensure that the consultants are providing the reports to planning department at the same time that they're -- they're submitting them to the project sponsor team so that there is not draft

submittals that are happening between the project sponsor and the consultant. >> supervisor preston: okay. how -- through the president, to build, how much did you pay to have a.l.h. economics render this [indiscernible]. >> president walton: representative from build, inc. ? >> yeah, lou vasquez. i don't have the numbers in front of me, but all ceqa consultants are required to be hired by the planner, not the city. >> yeah, and alexis [indiscernible] with the city. there was specifically a consultant that was hired by the city to conduct the peer review to confirm that the analysis that was included in

the a.l.h. report was adequate. >> supervisor preston: so ballpark figure of how much is paid, do we know? >> i don't recall. >> i don't know what the dollar figure was, but i do know that the analysis that was prepared was separately peer reviewed by a different consultant that was hired and retained by the city. of course, the developer always pays for those costs, but it was a different contract with the city, so that developer did a peer review. >> supervisor preston: mr. vasquez, do you have a ballpark? >> between $10,000 and $20,000. >> supervisor preston: and is this project, do you believe it will have significant impact on

this neighborhood in san francisco? >> no, i don't believe so. >> supervisor preston: and to your knowledge, has this consultant prepared prior reports or is this the first for the city and county of san francisco? >> to my knowledge, they've prepared prior reports [indiscernible] and i do believe that they were in the mission district. >> supervisor preston: thank you. to your knowledge, has this company ever concluded on any of their site specific reports that market rate development can cause displacement or gentrification? >> i cannot speak to what this firm has concluded on those other reports. i can speak to that -- i do believe that they have concluded that there wouldn't

be any physical environmental effects beyond that that was previously disclosed in prior documents. >> supervisor preston: okay. look, there's a separate question that that's not what they're opining on. they're opining that there's no gentrification from market rate development, and i will say as a comment, just looking at exhibit g to the response and the comments, i mean, the -- i know quite a bit about gentrification and displacement, and this does not read as an actual analysis of a neighborhood or a project, it reads as a set of predecided views. the literature that is reviewed and reported on does not even acknowledge counter opinions that actually argue in academic

research of the fact that market rate development in low-income neighborhoods can have gentrification and displacement impact, so that -- that perspective is not even acknowledged in what's supposedly literature review. it's then followed by a set of conclusory statemented by this company that housing does not result -- statements by this company that housing helps suppress increases in rent, it reduces displacement -- again, i want to acknowledge that that is a school of thought, but to present that and to then have the planning department frankly regurgitate this as if it's fact rather than acknowledging what i think the low-income communities in this city know all too well is that especially

hundreds upon hundreds of market rate units in a low-income community have gentrification impacts, when you have an ellis act and a costa hawkins and other limits, it leads to displacement, as well, but i believe it certainly leads to gentrification. let me just ask through the president, and then, i will wrap up. thank you for your indulgence on the time -- but to build, what is the projection of the cost of these units, the market rate units -- not to build, but to rent or to own? >> well, to build, it's probably -- the cost -- just the cost of building, it's in the high six figures, so 800,000, 900,000. >> supervisor preston: i'm not

asking the cost to the developer, i'm asking the price points at which the units are anticipated to be marketed. >> i'd be guessing. >> supervisor preston: well an educated guess. >> i don't have a good answer for that. the market is fluctuating wildly right now. >> supervisor preston: well, can you get a little more specific than that because i assume your lenders want a little more specificity to the representatives of build because i assume there's a ballpark that your financing is based on. >> on the site, we don't have financing in place to build it. >> president walton: i think the silence is from the shock, mr. vasquez, that we know you didn't do some kind of market analysis to know how much you're going to yield off of

profit from this property, so you should be able to tell us what -- what you're anticipating cost of units are. >> i told you what i thought the cost of the units are. >> president walton: my apologies. the cost to people who want to rent or own. >> oh, i didn't understand the question. sorry. the cost -- the cost to rent those units -- they're not for sale -- to rent, would be somewhere between $1500 to $4,000 a unit. >> supervisor preston: thank you. >> president walton: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. i look forward to -- i don't want to belabor it any more than i have because this sounds like an issue sounds like beyond this -- within this appeal, but also more broadly, i think the statements are, on

their face, problematic that -- and not an accurate representation of the research regarding the impacts of market rate development, and i -- i think planning department absolutely needs independent guidance "bohemian rhapsody" rhapsody" -- before they're repeating these types of assertions that are frankly not only inaccurate by paid for by developers. whether there are physical impacts from gentrification and displacements is one thing, but we have some representations on the record that are being taken as fact by the sponsor as well as the planning department that i find highly objectionable, and i would prefer with planning department if we can have an open and more honest

discussion about the impact of market rate development in low-income neighborhoods. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you. i agree with supervisor preston's statement and not having an independent analysis and relying on the developer's analysis alone, given the fact that we know that the urban displacement project has provided the sensitive community map that really identified the area specifically actually where 469 stevenson located is considered as a sensitive community where that is really at risk of gentrification and displacement, so i think my question or, really more as a comment, that it's interesting that planning did not take -- you know, like, broaden its analysis and really take a look at those that is frankly independent and academic studies and instead rely upon a

developer analysis on gentrification impact where we know that this is really market rate housing for profit. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor chan. supervisor melgar? [please stand by]

>> you cannot tell me there is no displacement or gentrification of fact unless my colleague says the laws around protection of those tenantsare watertight . i am particularly worried because this project is right next to the filipino cultural district which is not just

about the buildings but the historic population and institutions that are there. so in this analysis that wasn't addressed and i am worried that it is inadequate because of the protection of thehispanic district as well as geotechnical studies . >> president: thankyou supervisor melgar. supervisor peskin . >> thank you mister walton. this is not an on sequence question but as far as planning is here and it was supervisor preston who got me on this line of thought relative to pro forma and economics which is insofar asthis is a bonus state density project , doesn't the planning department require the project sponsor to submit documentation as to why they need waivers from local code

provisions to create more affordability and access waivers or concessions or incentives orwhatever , all that stuff is called. i'm getting my hands around it. it's the question of the planning department which is what financial analysis do they provide thedepartment and how is that analyzed ? >> president: planning? >> how do they justify their statedensity bonus ? >> supervisor peskin, though waivers and congestion the sponsors thought was reviewed by the current planners and the justification and rationale is provided in the motion for

those specific approval and in the in addition the product sponsor prepared of feasibility analysis of the project an alternative which the planning department directed and reviewedextensively the scope and result of that analysis . >> well it's notgermane to sequence but i will let it go for now. i'mjust curious . thank you mister president . >> thank you, supervisor haney. >> i've got aquestion for the city attorney . maybe probably forthe city attorney is with us remotely . but i wanted to clarify here and exactly understand what we should be weighing on this. i know there are a number of questions related to gentrification and displacement and i wanted to ask explicitly

if you could help us understand your view of our ability to waive that as part of the adequacy of the eir and how that plays into sequence from your perspective. >> absolutely supervisor. they do not allow or pertain t configuration of social economic effects per se . as has been said. but it allows the consideration about those facts if related to linking to impact on the environment. so i think the conversation has shown there are two questions being raised. wonder whether there is any gentrification or displacement and the second one would be whetherthere are any impacts to the environment resulting from that . as to the conversations so far

have centered around the first but the question really needs both .so if you think that there is displacement and gentrification then you need to reach the conclusion that that displacement and gentrification have also or will likely to lead to impacts on the environment. and if you do that and you think that's the case then you're finding that they are not adequately considering this issue but absent that finding ofdirection , whether or not there is social economic impacts is not a question for that it's a question for the merits of the project in this case the conditional use authorization with which could have appealed to the board and you would have had authority to deny if you're saying it's a project that shouldn't be approved on policy grounds. i hope that answers your

questions. >> thank you, it does. i don't know if there are other questions orcomments . >> i dosee a couple more. supervisor preston . >> thank you for the your question supervisor. i'm not getting up this issue that i think is always a challenging one around the analysis. the social and economic impact but here's the problem.the discussion we were having earlier shows that there is an assumption that there is no gentrification impact . that's what the hired expert paid by bills concludes and the planning department simply accepts. so you don't even get to the physical impact question because they don't concede that there is any impact and i would say this is the frustrating part because the discussion we

should be having isof course there'sthe gentrification impact . like let's be real. of course there's a gentrification . and the more challenging question is what are the physical impacts. when you gentrify a neighborhood, there are potential physical impacts including a huge surge in for example tmc delivery vehicles and things that are adirect impact on the environment . but that's the problem here is we don't get to that analysis because you have a flawed analysis of and complete denial over the reality that there's gentrification. >> thank you supervisor. >> my question is for the planning department. one of the things i think that has been missed in this conversation is looking at this project in isolation because this is not the first mixed-use project that's been approved by

the planning commission, planning department and negotiated in this chamber and in this body and reviewed in this body so my question then becomes there were previous environmental analysis done on large projects in soma. those looked at the same environmental considerations and if some of the arguments are being used today we would go back and reject some of those projects that came before this body. based on lack of affordability or based on the impacts of so-called gentrification. i think i agree with you supervisor preston to thechair. there's no doubt gentrification does happen. you're right in that regard . i think that does need to be taken into consideration but to isolate this project out and not look at the totality of other projects that have been approved and have not and or maybe appealed and approved by

this body i think would be hard to look at this in isolationso my question is for the planning department . whatare some of the large projects approved over the last few years there was one on sixth street . i can't remember the exact name. there's one coming down the pipe at the old chronicle building.there's larger projects happening in soma that are multiunit that are also verysimilar to this and are looking at the same environmental consideration . is anyone from the planning departmentable to answer that question ? >> supervisor safai through the chairthere have been other large projects in the area . example nearby ... [inaudible] in addition to thesoma neighborhood the question has come up a few times before the board of supervisors . in the eastern neighborhood area there are issues for prospects in that plan area.

one thing that we have the opportunity to do is figure it out if the board requested. >> my question through the chairto you is how much affordability was included in the project ? >> i do not know offhand but i can look into thatquestion of affordability , the number of affordable units . >> that would begood and the total number of units . as i understand it this project is 495 units, 15 percent on-site and contributing to our affordable housing stock. that's 25 percent of the total. i think in years past the city has debated quite a lot about total number.we had a conversation about looking at inclusionary housing. the amount of family size units are also under consideration

and that takessomething that we talked about in the past . there's no question adding more units will add more traffic, more demand, more impact on businesses and housing stock. those are all true statements but if this were the first project to come down the pipe in this neighborhood it would be easier to make some of the arguments i've heard here today in isolation , that is not the case. there have beensignificant impacts on projects that have been proposed and approved looking at the same environmentalconsiderations . thank you mister president . thankyou planning department . >> president: thank you supervisorsafai and melgar . >> i wanted to make a comment , i think we've exhausted the arguments. based on your comments supervisor safai the project was not an sb 35 project and something that i really appreciated with was supervisor

mandelman's comments and i wonder i'm an urban planner. i love the field of urban planning because it allows us to consider economic impactsand typical impacts and plan for our city . now that we are in this new reality where waivers can be acquired and things can be billed not in the context of the planning that we spend years dealing with and engaging the community what is the process of the planning department that's different to address that issue . i would like to respectfully request that the department address that in the future because we are in a different landscape and i think it is a disservice to our vulnerable communities to dothat . i want to see how we rebuildin our city . i think it'simportant . that we have to do it, where there are residents who scanned thedisplacement .

dangerous, i don't think we have to. there are powerfulmarket forces . that are pushing us to do that we in planning or adjustment and equitable cities can do differently and i hope that we have partners in the planning department to do that and i would like to seethe process of how that spells out how were going to do that in this new reality . >> thank you supervisor. supervisor ronan. >> supervisor. >> no worries. >> kind of responding to supervisors preston's comments, we've dealt with similar dynamics in mission district 4 years. ever since i've been on this board we had so many different projects and part of the problem of not identifying the

particular gentrification affects each individual project and means that when the next one comes up, we can't analyze the cumulative impact because we never realized the physical impacts in the first project. so it is a flaw in our entire examination just because we don't do this correctly because of what i think is a fundamentally flawed active of print planning and always has been about the gentrification impacts of theseindividual projects , we have to consider each project that comes before us and whether or not it was properly analyzed. and you know, whether it isthe tipping point project . that enhances gentrification to such a degree or in a unique way inthis case because it's right next to the man .

that you know, whatever happened to this prior project doesn't necessarily dismiss this analysis that were asking for the planning department for this particular project meets thateffect if that makes sense . >> thank you. supervisor mark. >> ex-president walton. i wanted to say i think it's been a really important discussion we've been having about this project that touches on a lot of really important and challenging issues.as we tried to direct and shaped development in our city. andespecially this last discussion around the displacement . the potential for this project to further gentrification and displacement andthis extremely vulnerable community . and consideration of the social and economic impacts of the project. and which is very clear to me that this will have a very

significant displacement and social economic impact on the sixth street corridor, on the filipino community and the broader low income community here . i did have follow-up questions are planning about the consideration of this in around the sequent issues and whether the eir complies. so if we do like members of this body do feel that will have significant social and economic impacts and displacementimpacts here . and i guess the question is whether that will lead to environmental impacts and so my question is whether that also includes not just the physical environment but also impacts on the historic resources have been already identified here.

particularly the sixth street district and filipino cultural district . >> mister chair, miss boston at the resources institute for the proposed project if there is a determination that there is significant social economic impact to this project and displacement impacts . can the environmental, can we consider the environmental impact of that alsoincluding impacts on the historic resources ? >> to the extent that if there was a determination of gentrification displacement impacts that wouldresult in physical impacts that were specific to the historic resources , there would have to be that impact for those

historical resources which take to thedistrict and their contributors. i hope that answers your question . >> it would have to impact the physical or environmental makeup of thehistoric district. urban resources . >> yes. >> thank you supervisor mar, supervisor peskin. >> thank you president walton. i concur with supervisor mar and i appreciate my colleagues questions and the subsequent discussion . and i get a sense just based on the comments that we are for a majority of us are prepared to be able to find that the eir is not adequate pursuant to

chapter 31 of our administrative code and cqua and i'm happy to lay that out based on thosediscussions but before i do so , as is our custom i'm happy to defer to the district 6 supervisor if that would be appropriate and if there's no comments from the supervisor i'm happy to make a motion . >> thank you, i believe supervisor haney does have his name and the roster. >> i do have comments and a different motion. so we will have a vote on that and then we can if that is not passed and there's another one. i do want to just note that i do appreciate all of the comments and questions on this project in district 6. and my challenge here of course is that i have the responsibility to judge this appeal solely on

the cqua related arguments. as you know colleagues before i get into the cqua related arguments i want to address some of the bigger picture issues around the project . probably because we know we recently project rejected a project of a dense housing micro unit development because we found this did not meet the needs of the neighborhood. another neighborhood i represent. we argued that what the neighborhood needed was more dwelling units, moral multiple bedroom units to meet the needs of the many rolling families and workers traveling to us find appropriate housing in san francisco and this project which is a parking lot and has been for years we have studios but we also have two,three, four and five bedroom units . the project is approximately 24 percent affordable and a combination of on-site and off-site is much higher than

the project we had concerned about weeks ago and the project works diligently to provide an array of benefits for jobs including the donation of a nearby parcel for affordable housing and eating in the acquisition of affordable housing and contributing to the buildings rehabilitation. we all agree our city needs more housing particularly near areas where we are creating jobs. there has beenand will be massive increases of jobsin the surrounding area. these were projects including commercial developments that we have approved at this for . we have a huge mismatch in our jobs housing ratio . morehousing jobs in public transit including affordable housing is good for our environment particularly during the housing crisis . we do recognize much of the new housing is being built in midmarket and the southeast part of our city and i believe more of our city should be

going housing tomeet the demands of new residents . in order to address gentrification concerns it's critical we build housing across our entire city notonly in this market and yes when we do build more housing , i agree we need to analyze impacts closely. in this case the sros and buildings along the sixthstreet corridor and theater district are explicitly protected by the city . that is something i think we should be proud of as the board of supervisors. we will continue to champion and protect entertainment culture and affordable housing in district 6 and work hard to preserve and create more of these community resources in affordable housing but this project is being developed on a vacant parking lot.it is not displacing affordable units and it will ultimately providemore affordable units and more affordable multi family bedroom units, exactly the ones a few

weeks ago we said we want to see more of . the benefits package with committee groups and residents who live in the surrounding areawill provide other benefits including large floor community spaces and will provide for hundreds of union jobs . many of the people who called in or signed on our some of our city's most vocal tenant leaders. many of them are well-known anti-gentrification at activists andsome of them were in opposition but are here in support of this one because of committee. the benefits . i have had great respect for the appellants and their supporters including mister oberlin. i've worked with them to build more affordable housing. yesterday we were working with the mayor's office and members of the committee to ensure the preservation of rent-controlled community occupied units and soma along where this project is and this is the work we will

continue to do to preserve affordability and more affordable housing to help our communities i want to reiterate the only issue in front of us today is the cqua question and planning department and city attorney in particular have made it clear to me that the main issue here is the potential stability of the building and that is a question that i've had to consider. the issue of sinking or or leaning building is the one we knowreal well but since the catastrophic errors made , the city has created a new rigorous process and needs to prevent this fromhappening again. the specific design is not yet at the stage where we know what will be built . the eir process is meant to rely on these decisions because the planning department does not have the expertise to make those decisions. as this project moves forward it will need to go through an independent peer-reviewed to

determine what steps are necessary to ensure the structural integrity of the building . this process was put into place after learning the issues came up with the millennial tower landing and board of supervisors defers to this secondary process to make sure thatit is done safely. i know that there are questions around gentrification and i share those concerns . it's my belief that the analysis that's been given from the city attorney around that issue requires me to make the followingdecisions. i want to thank the planning department, city attorney and both parties for their work for you all. my colleagues for your questions . i represent this area and have thought about this seriously and critically and the district directors and continues to build significant amounts of housing for our city and we need more housing to meet the job demands as well as housing that's near jobs and housing that are larger units and yes

affordable housingof which this project will bring a significant number . so with that i do not believe that there is a cqua argument that demonstrates the inadequacy of the eir which leaves me to make the motion to move item 39 to the table items for 40 and 41. >> thank you so much. thank you somuch supervisor any . there is a motion to approve item 39. and table items 40 and 41made by supervisor any . seconded by supervisor stephanie. madam clerk on the motion. >> can i the motion. >> my apologies, supervisor peskin. >> respectfully colleagues, and i will get into the merits or lack thereof of the project itself but just to go to the

issues based on thequestions and answers and discussion that we've had over the last couple of hours . and say simply and this relates to many different ones, members questions, as to the shadow on mint plaza, ithink supervisor ronan asked the question could that shadow be mitigated . yes if alternatives were consideredthat were rejected out of hand as infeasible that should not have been rejected . that right there is why the eir is inadequate. inaccurate and insufficient. the fact that because the initial study came to the conclusion and i think supervisor mandolin asked the question very well.came to the conclusion that there could be no impacts to historic resources. it was not analyze in the report even though experts at san francisco architectural

heritage one of whom we heard who is qualified from his qualify on the secretary of interior standards and missed petri indicated yes it would and in the one of the individuals from planning said that it may have and this is a quote and effect on the setting which is exactly what supervisor mandelman rate that would have an impact on the context of those joining historic districts of the national historic landmarks which are very few and rare. that is the old mandate so the eir is inadequate and insufficient on itsface or that reason . same thing with the geotech. it should not have been scoped out. you can't as the attorney for the appellant miss brad holly said rely on trusting me. that doesn't cut the mustard. it has to be analyzed or decision-makers to come to conclusionson a discretionary project . there are a range of reasonably feasible alternatives that

could have been analyzed but were not. and i associate myself with the comments of supervisor preston relative to the potential for physical impacts because of gentrification that were not analyzed. again the eir is insufficient. it is inadequate and should be rejected. i respectfully urge you colleagues to vote against the motion that is on the floor. if thatmotion fails i would make an alternative motion to move items 40and 41 . >> thank you supervisorpeskin, supervisor stephanie . >> i was happy to second supervisor 80s motion . it just does not sit well with me. we just rejected a proposed project because it wasn't housing this does add family housing to our stock. i just don't understand how we ever housing built in the city if we continue to let the

perfect be the enemy of the good. it does not sit well with me. see it the same way and i was happy tosupport supervisor haney's motion with a second . >> president: tank you supervisor. seeing no one else on the roster madam clerkon the motion . >>on the modem motion to exclude item 39, supervisor walton .[roll call vote]

>> thank you madam clerk and by a vote of 83 thmotion clears . supervisor peskin .>> thank you president walton, colleagues. for the aforementioned reasons articulated a moment to go and buy many of you in the course of theseproceedings i'd like to move items 40 and 41 . >> president: thank you so much. seconded by supervisor ronen. madam clerk, there's a motion to move items 40 and 41 by supervisor peskin. [roll call vote] >> haney was no. [roll call vote]

>> there are 8 aye's and three nose with haney and stephanie in dissent. >> president: the motion carries.madam clerk, can you please go to our last 3 pm special order items 42 through 46. >> items 42 through 45mister president . these items were continued from october 5, 2021. this is an appeal of the determination of exemption for environmental review for the proposed project at 35 ventura avenue.

item 42 is the hearing of item interested in determination of exemption fromenvironmental review under the california environmental quality act . issued as a categorical exemption by the planning department november 18 , or the proposed project at 35 ventura avenue to include a secondfloor addition of 15 feet in height for the proposedproject consists of approximately 30 foot tall 30,000 square-foot single-family home . items 43 , 44 and 45 are the emotions associated with that public hearing . >> president: supervisor melgar. >> thank you president walton, my office has been working diligently with this project sponsor and the appellant . but we are not ready today . and i would like to request that i'd like to make a motion that we continue this item to november 9 to allow for eyes dotted, t's crossed. >> motion to continue this item

until the november night meeting seconded by supervisor mandelman. madam clerk on the motion. >> clerk: on the motion to continue items 40 three through 45 to november 9, 2021, supervisor walton. >> president: madam clerk i believe we need to ask for public comment. >> clerk: my apologies. operations, do we have anyone who is in the queue who would be interested in speaking to thecontinuance of items 42 through 45to november 9, 2021? i understand we have one person in the queue and there are six are listening . let's hear from our first color

. >> thereare no callers in the queue . >> thank you mister atkins. >> president: public comment is now closed. madam clerk on the motion. >> clerk: on themotion to continue items 42 through 45 to november 9, 2021, supervisor walton . [roll call vote] >> there are 11 aye. >> motion to continue this hearing and associated motions to november 9 is approved unanimously. madam clerk this concludes our 3 pm special orders. can you please take us back to

roll call for introductions. >> during rollcall mister president you have the opportunity to introduce new business. next on the list would be supervisor chad. submit, thank you. supervisor haney. thank you, supervisor mandolin. submit. supervisor mar. submit, thank you. improviser melgar. . supervisor peskin. >> submit everything for colleagues i want to say i am holding a hearing with regard to measures that the sf mta needs to undertake for enforcement on the sidewalk writing of micro mobility devices. the number of accidents are increasing and i am very sad to

have learned that the director of the mayor's office and disability nicole barnes who gave me permission to share this was the victim a week ago of a horrifying hit and run collision while on the sidewalk that has landed her in the hospital with a crushed ankle that she is going to be in a skilled nursing facility for the rest of this year it is for epic . asearch warrant has been issued , one of the microbial mobility companies and apart from that several weeks ago my office actually met with sf mta to talk about ways that they can vastly up their game ranging from education to enforcement and increased finds and finds that are not just the cost of doing business to the platforms but are passed on to writers so my intent is to request data from san francisco hospitals.

i'm open to suggestions from you colleagues. i know the mta is taking this seriously but time is not their friend. there was a16-year-old kid who had a critical traumatic brain injury a few weeks ago . and i want to put all of these options on the table and if necessary even subpoenaed documents that show whether providers are in compliance with state liability insurance requirements which requires policies of not less than $1 million from each occurrence of bodily injury or property damage and the rest i will submit. >> thank you supervisor peskin, supervisor preston.>> thank you madam clerk. today i am requesting a hearing on the sudden abandonment by the city's homelessness and housing development each sh of a project serving homeless

youth in haight-ashbury. this is in direct violation of ace hsa commitment to our community that drop in the center would be active at 7:30 standing, a former mcdonald's site bythe end of this month . this site owned by the city sat vacant for years before i took office. it's the future home of the 100 percent affordable housing object which has broad community support and fully supported by my office. in may 2020 my office partnered with the then named emergency operations center now will be command. the youth alliance and neighbors to launch a safe sleeping site at thislocation during the pandemic . it was indisputably the most successful safe sleeping site in the city. operated by alliance market. the site was extended twice and wound down at theend of june

occupants moving to supportive housing, sip hotels . and other safe sleeping site. our office insisted the site be activated again for the community as an interim youth that such use includes at minimum bathrooms, showers and basic drop in services including referrals for the hates homeless transitional age youth population in this interim before development begins which is likely will likely be well over a year. forour advocacy and as part of the city's ongoing emergency response in the pandemic , mostly the nhs h agreed to have such an interim service for interim services for homeless on the site. in august each sh informed my office plans were delayed one month guaranteed that services to launchby the end of october at the latest . this representation was also

repeatedly made by each sh to the community. for example on august 19, 2021 this year a virtual community meeting regarding the site hs h again confirmed publicly the plans to open drop in centers in late october 2021. verbally environments like that hs h explained the proposed scan in drop-in center were will provide access to amenities providing bathrooms, and washing stations and showers, provide daytimedrop-in services including information and referral to other resources to support making homelessness rare, brief and one-time, utilize a harm reduction approach with a focus on services for transitional age youth . each sh issued itssolicitation for proposals for the drop in center onseptember 7 . the homeless youth alliance was

preparing to open these critical services on the site . just days ago less than two weeks before thesite was open hs h in your staffinformed our office and homeless youth alliance project will not proceed . they internally conflicting reasons were provided none of which add up . in the history of this site where the city refused to launch interim uses for years keeping the sites vacant until 2020 and where when the city launched a safe sleeping site as part of our response anti-homeless zealots hired from lawyer to's suit to stop the site from opening. we are concerned that the site will continue to sitvacant rather than provide critical services for thecommunity . i will not speculate as to why hs h abandoned promised services for homeless youth on this site . that issue will be addressed at the hearing. at this point we only know the entire community will suffer if the services are not continued as promised.

we are staff served by having the dignity of bathrooms and showers to get off the street. likewise we believehouse neighbors are best served when on house people have these facilities and services . i hope we can agree it is better for everyone and on house peoplewho need to have access to defecate in a bathroom rather than being forced to do so on the streets, doorways and parts of the neighborhood . denying thehuman need for bathrooms and showers for food and housing are counterproductiveand inhumane . why would hs h promise such criticalservices and reverse at the last minute . we look forward to their response on the record at the public hearing . importantly we cannot expect our communities to trust the promises of hs h when explicit promisescan be broken with no explanation to the community or public . accountability and transparency are important for our

government to function effectively and unfortunately onthis site what we're seeing is a staggering betrayal of the trust to the detriment of on house neighbors and the entire community . we hope to get more clarity as to how this happened and learn how we can activate those sites immediately to serve community needs. we look forward to hearing from the mayor's office and hs h at this hearing . the rest i submit . >>thank you supervisor preston, supervisor ronen . >> we had a huge rally and press conference for a couple of hours outside city hallwith california domestic coalition celebrating the introduction of a piece of legislation today . that will do two main things. it will allow domestic workers for multiple employers and who never populate an adequate amountof sick leave to make it worthwhile . aggregate the hours worth of multiple different employers to be able to employ significant and meaningful segway.

the legislation directs officers back in workforce development to contract for the creation of an app that makes it easy to have sick leave as an affordable benefit for the employers, domestic workers and their phone, record hours and record the hourly wage and then calculate very quickly the amount that each individual employerowes towards that domestic workers sick leave . we all realize how important sick leave is during this pandemic. domestic workers although legally entitled to sick leave under our laws have never received it in san francisco and it's about time that we give them their due. i want to just give a quick thanks to so many people that worked on this for a long time beginning with really out of, director of thecalifornia

domestic workers coalition . rosea off a lot , who helped offer the legislation together with my incredible legislative aides. they've been working with lisa powell and amazing city attorney for months on end to get thiscomplicated legislation right .i want the city attorney's office for going as far as to hire outside counsel to analyze the really, located tax issues involved in this legislation. i really appreciate the city attorney's office for going above and beyond to drop this legislation out ina responsible way .i want to thank you mina , the leader of the harris has who has been fighting for domestic worker equality and rights for decades and then finally my lead cosponsor and dear friend who with her family

knows firsthand what it is to come to this country as a migrant worker and you know, work harder than anyone else but not receive any of those people benefits on the job. thank you for being my cosponsor on this i want to thank the rest of my colleagues who have signed up at this early date.i have a feeling there's going to be many more so i'm sorry if i missedyou . if you told me yourcosponsoring and i've missed you but so far we have resident walton . supervisor dean preston. supervisor connie chand. supervisor mahaney, improviser safai and i'm going to say it, at any moment it probably just hasn't had a chance to read the legislation and asking to sign on as well. thank youso much colleagues for your support . this is one of those rare pieces of legislation that

seems easy. and isn't actually as easy as it seems and most importantly is a material benefit and change in low-wage workerslives . something that needs to happen on a regular basis to this country and i feel superhonored to be introducing this legislation today with the rest i'll submit . >> supervisor. >> i just want to talk about real quick we also have a rally outside today. thanks supervisor for joining us with supervisor melgar. there's a lot of things going on today and we're excited to be out and back in public meeting and talking about important issues in our city. this one today we're honoring the men and women that work on the front lines with our solid waste and teamsters local 350. the work that they do in our city clean often times with no recognition .

visibly in the dark of the night. just like many of us are on the front lines fighting for our city as front-line workers and i just wanted to appreciate them. you gave a proclamation today and i want to recognize the hard work they do . and honor the longtime leaders of that union to elevated it and made italong with the joint council . more important in your bomb around us. i want to thank john bouchard, secretary-treasurer . local 350 and the work that they did and all the teamsters that came out. this is 85 years it's been in existence doing this work in sanfrancisco and so i just wanted to givethem some recognition today and thank them for the rest i submit . >> thank you . >> today i'm introducing a resolution to recognize november 7, 2021 at the 21st anniversary of saint gregory apostolic church. the romanian community has been

a vibrant component of san francisco since the 1900s. saint gregory the illuminator armenian church parish was organized in 1953 by the fibers of the armenian genocide. to meet the needs of growing armenian community in san francisco. the committee purchased the property 51 commonwealth in my district in 1956 to serve as a religious center of their community. saint gregory the illuminator churchparish has grown tobe a religious and cultural cornerstone for the armenian american community and the bay area . tragically in 2020 , arsonists set fire to the parish building and cultural center located adjacent to the church causing severe damage and ihate cream crime against the armenian community . i hope you'll join me in celebrating the 55th anniversary of the saint gregory armenian church in proclaiming november 7, 2021 as saint gregory the illuminator

armenian church day in san francisco. recognizing the incredible bravery and resiliency of the army armenian community continues to exhibit in the face of such horrendous hate and i want to thank my cosponsor and the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor. mister president seeing note nameson the roster that includes the interaction of new business . >> humana. let's go to public comment. >> at this time theboard welcomes general public comment . to avoid the signal delay listen from your touch phone. willbe slicing to listen to the proceeding and provide public comment . throughout the meeting the telephone numberhas been streaming on your screen, it's 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt enter the meeting id . 248-4749 5194. press pound twice. you'll know you have joined as a listener will hear the discussionbut your line willbe

muted . once you're ready to get into the queue to provide public comment pressáthree . i know currently we have about five members who are listening and about three in the queue to provide comment.if you are hoping to provide comment general public comment this evening you should pressáthree otherwise this group of three that are lined up we may take this quickly. mister atkins do we have any callers in the queue. >> good evening board of supervisors. this is gilbert criswell comin from district 8 . they only care about fair increases. we must stop this coming service. we need to have muni restore service to all buses in the city. there are neighborhoods that have no bus service whatsoever and have left thousands of san franciscans stranded. they don't have access to clean water, food orlife-saving

medication . open essential the central subway. it expand the subway to north beach and fisherman's wharf. we have an executive director that is from white. he lies to the public.he lies to the board of supervisors. he lies to the mainer.he got $1 billion.there's no reason why all the buses should be on the street. i went by where the buses are part and i saw hundreds if not thousands of buses just sitting in the yard. those buses should be on the street pickingpeople up. instead they're justsitting in the yard . it doesn't make any sense whatsoever . so we need transit justice in the city. poor people need to get around

in the city they rely on muni. muni has failed the public. the mayor has failed the public. the mayor slogan should be going to fight fares and cut service . thatshould be her reelection campaign slogan. thank you . >> i understand we have four colors in the queue and eight who are listening. operations let's hear from our next color. we're setting the timer for two minutes. >> linda chapman, on the subject of inclusionary housing which was just in your committee although i missed most of the much of the hearing before i came to testify to be absolutely certain that you do not put the low income bmr units in hla's with market rate housing. i got the impression that that is whatyou are proposing . when i was participating in the unitarian for him on housing one of which you may know david chu appeared and said that the

project that you are promoting on-time street is obviously illegal and cannot be done. one of the things that the minister who was leading it was saying he was concerned that the chu you post putting inclusionary dmr units in the housing. in a market rate housing. well, what is and then i got the impression that the board wassaying that theyshould ignore that and the mayor's office of housing .what is it ? are you thinking that choo-choo represents allthose rapacious developments interests like cnbc and chinatown cdc in my neighborhood ? they don't know what they're talking about. the hearing, pardon me, the planning commission hearing when i spoke on this in detail behind me came another one from

bayview diane wesley smith who said sherepresented the real estate interest as a homeowner and she agreed . if you only understood the dynamics of these hla's you would not even consider such a thing . today in the convention the woman who represents hla's came and talked about how all the people are losing their homes because they have to, with these huge assessments. that's just one of the problems. even the monthly dues are beyond. >> operations,do we have another color in the queue ? >> hello, goodevening. this is barry toronto. i'm calling for several reasons .

you might want to reconsider the public comment being so late because it does prevent people from participating in public comment. you might want to have a time certainfor a few public commenters. maybe a 510 10 at that time. the next topic is about bathrooms . now that you don't have bathrooms open until 7:00 , the outdoor ones available during the pandemic, it is very difficult. i have to drive all the way back to my taxi cab company to go to the bathroom and that isn't right. the guy at castro and market said that he has a shift at 7:00 pm and this topic is regarding the casecenter. you know how several supervisors have actually taken cabs from the chase center i've been told. however you won't find me serving the chase center because they don't want us there .

they say they do but they don't keep that taxicab staging area clear on the west side of cherry next to the venue itself there occupied by pedicabs, by private vehicles, by town cars . it makes it very difficult and there being threatened with a double parkingticket is not a fun way to have your shift be destroyed because it takes away all your income so i want to say i urge you to help in trying toget this taken careof . thank you very much . >> clerk: thank you for your comments mister toronto. operations do we have another color in the queue ? >> caller: good evening supervisors. i'd like to see again tonight the discussion of our beloved drug lord and overlord. i emphasize i am all prohibition aterm coined by richard cohen in 1926 . it's the potency of prohibited substances increases. code put it this way. the harderthe enforcement, the

harder the drugs . the law of application of the elgin island effect, jim gray calls the law a cardinal rule of prohibition and notes it's arguing for the prohibition of drugs. it produces black markets and are concentrated in powerful forms. these more potent forms offer better efficiency and take up less space in storage, less transportation and cost more money. economist mark stillman writes the iron law of prohibition undermines the argument in favor of prohibition and higher potency forms are less safe for the consumer. you can see these impacts today and preferential usage of heroin over opioid or fentanyl over heroin. or the preferential usage of teenagersof hard alcohol over beer or wine .where we

prohibit substances and do so with increasing force they reliablybecome more potent and more dangerous to our constituency . our societybecomes more violent , more lawless. overdoses and addictions increase. this is all well documented. please read the signs. thank you. >> we have seven callers who are listening and one or two colors in the queue. if you'd like to provide public comment thisevening you'dbetter press star 3 now otherwise we will take this at the end . mister atkins, next color . >> caller: good evening, this is jordan david's. my pronouns are and her. i don'tknow if you communicate this in the agenda but you can learn something . there's a letter from mary rogan and as a medically frail queer woman who lives in housing run by connors which

apparently some of you are a little too cozy with. she is on day nine of a hunger strike over the deplorable conditions of her building enclosing animals waste and abuse, harassment, urination from her ceiling and denying her right to smoke free housing which by the way many of you voted against in december. shame shame . she is nearing the point where she needs to go to the hospital and nobody is paying attention to this. while most of this is implemented this month this is just the tip of the iceberg for psh. we have habitability and safety issues, wi-fi problems, the problems, accessibilityproblems because hs age can't cross their eyes across the fee yet

we tried to get hsa to bring greater oversight but someof you decide we have to prevent we the people from voting on it . i'm sick and tired of our unique needs being ignored and our voices beingmarginalized . we are not stupid to stop treating a us as such. move your feet and get it done for supportivehousing tenants . i yield my time . >> thank you miss davis. do we have another color in the queue? >> clerk: there are nofurther callers in the queue . >> mister president. >> thank you so much and seeing no other speakers public comment is now closed. madam clerk let's go to our reduction whena committee reference identical items 52 through 61 . >> items 50 through's two through 61 were introduced without committee reference. the unanimous vote is required for adoption of these resolutions today on first reading. alternatively a member may requirea resolution to vote of committee .>> would you like

to sever any items?supervisor haney. >> can i sever 54? >> president: thank you supervisor haney. supervisormar . >> i wantedto be added as a cosponsor to 57 and 58 . >> thank you so much. i don't see anyone else on the roster so madam clerk, would you please call the role for items 52, 53, 55 . >> i'm sorry, can you me to item 53. >> i'm glad you can't see my faceright now. thank you supervisor . anyone else. >> last call. thank you madam clerk, would you please call the role for items 52 through 53 and 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61.

>> on item 52, 53 and 55 through 61. supervisor walton. >> supervisor chant. [roll call vote]. >>. >> without projecting these resolutions are adopted and motions are approved unanimously. madam clerk please call item number 54. >> item 54 is a resolution that the city and county of san francisco supports notice and

compliance opportunities for small businesses facing lawsuits or violations related to americans with disability act accommodations . and call for additional suppor assistance and information or small businesses tocomply with the americans with disabilities act . >> thank you supervisor any . >> i would love to have this sent to committee. there's folks who want to have further conversation. >> thank yousupervisor, madam clerk, no action is required. >> i apologize, my hearing is bad. he said item 54 to committee ? thank you. no further action, single members privilege >> president: thank you. madam clerk do we have any imperative agenda items ? >> two report but iwould like to make a clerks note on one item . i apologized earlier i was having an asthma attack and i just didn't stay for the record as we normally do that for items 38 through 41

specifically item 39 was tabled and items 40 through 41 were approved. that was the action taken by this body ultimately on that matter . i want toor clarity say that. >> thank you madam clerk . and would you please present the in memoriam. >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following will of individual . on behalf of board president walton for the late reverend calvin jones junior. >> thank you madamclerk . and we are in the deep part of october which is known as breast cancer awarenessmonth . we dedicate an entire month to awareness of breast cancer because it is the most common cancer among women apart from skin cancer. according to the national breast cancer foundation incorporated about one in eight american women will experience this cancer in their lives.

thank you everyone who has done something this month to acknowledge and support making sure that we improve the lives of anyone who may have breast cancer.and we say this to everyone. you may encounter many defeats but you must not be defeated. in fact it may be necessary to encounter defeat so you can know who you are, what you can rise from and how you can come out of it. maya angelou.

>> it was an outdoor stadium for track and field, motorcycle and auto and rugby and cricket located in golden gate park, home to professional football,

lacross and soccer. adjacent to the indoor arena. built in the 1920s. the san francisco park commission accepted a $100,000 gift from the estate to build a memorial in honor of pioneers in the area. the city and county of san francisco contributed an additional $200,000 and the stadium was built in a year. in the 1930s it was home to several colleges such as usf, santa clara and st. mary's for competition and sporting. in 1946 it became home to the san francisco 49ers where they played nearly 25 years. the stayed de yam sat 60,000 fans. many caught game the rooftops and houses. the niners played the last game against the dallas cowboys january 3, 1971 before moving to candlestick park. the stadium hosted other events

before demolition in 1989. it suffered damages from the earthquake. it was reconstructed to seat 10,000 fans with an all weather track, soccer field and scoreboards. it hosts many northern california football championship games. local high schools sacred heart and mission high school used the field for home games. the rivalry football games are sometimes played here. today it is a huge free standing element, similar to the original featuring tall pink columns at the entrance. the field is surrounded by the track and used by high school and college football and soccer. it is open for public use as well.

>> once i got the hang of it a little bit, you know, like the first time, i never left the court. i just fell in love with it and any opportunity i had to get out there, you know, they didn't have to ask twice. you can always find me on the court. [♪♪♪] >> we have been able to participate in 12 athletics wheelchairs. they provide what is an expensive tool to facilitate basketball specifically. behind me are the amazing golden state road warriors, which are one of the most competitive adaptive basketball teams in the

state led by its captain, chuck hill, who was a national paralympic and, and is now an assistant coach on the national big team. >> it is great to have this opportunity here in san francisco. we are the main hub of the bay area, which, you know, we should definitely have resources here. now that that is happening, you know, i i'm looking forward to that growing and spreading and helping spread the word that needs -- that these people are here for everyone. i think it is important for people with disabilities, as well as able-bodied, to be able to see and to try different sports, and to appreciate trying different things. >> people can come and check out this chairs and use them. but then also friday evening, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., it will be wheelchair basketball we will make sure it is available, and that way people can no that people will be

coming to play at the same time. >> we offer a wide variety of adaptive and inclusion programming, but this is the first time we have had our own equipment. [♪♪♪] >> 5, 4, 3, 2 , 1. cut. >> we are here to celebrate

the opening of this community garden. a place that used to look a lot darker and today is sun is shining and it's beautiful and it's been completely redone and been a gathering place for this community. >> i have been waiting for this garden for 3 decades. that is not a joke. i live in an apartment building three floors up and i have potted plants and have dreamt the whole time i have lived there to have some ability to build this dirt. >> let me tell you handout you -- how to build a community garden. you start with a really good idea and add community support from echo media and levis and take management and water and sun and this is what we have.

this is great. it's about environment and stewardship. it's also for the -- we implemented several practices in our successes of the site. that is made up of the pockets like wool but they are made of recycled plastic bottles. i don't know how they do it. >> there is acres and acres of parkland throughout golden gate park, but not necessarily through golden community garden. we have it right in the middle of >> >> >>

my name is jean alexander. i'm an attorney in the san francisco city attorney's office. i supervise the tax team, giving tax advice to the treasurer, tax collect or, drafting tax legislation. the thing i remember my mother telling me as a child is that you need to be prepared to take care of yourself and i knew that i wanted to be able to do something that i enjoyed. i didn't expect anybody to give me anything because nobody ever gave her anything and i also i always saw her fighting for the things that she wanted in life for herself and for her

children. >> my name is jasmine flores. i am working as an admin assistant in the city attorney's office. i have always enjoyed the tasks that i have been given. on the days i show up and work on my own is empowering. for me, happiness in being more involved in a person-to-person interaction. my dream jobs includes being a physician, paramedic, firefighter, working with animals with the public. on a personal level with self improvement. my sister is the biggest influence in my life because she taught me to go forward with what makes you happy rather that what makes you the most money. >> i graduated from law school

in 1972 at a time when there was a beginning to be an influx of women in the legal profession and tried criminal cases for about 10 years, treatment for delinquent operating programs, government budgets, analyzed fiscal legislation. i came to the san francisco city attorney's office and i have been here for about 12 years advising on tax matters. i did just about anything you can think of. some things that lawyers do and some things that lawyers don't do. >> i'm from the mission in san francisco. i have grown up there and i have lived there pretty much my whole life. living there, i do see other women, some of them older, some of them look just like me like my age and a

lot of them work nanny jobs, child care jobs, retail jobs. i don't know, it seems kind of like a reminder that you are kind of lucky to be where you are, i guess. just when you haven't gone so far at all. i want them to go on maybe go on an interview that's more challenging that they think that they can't get that job. you know, just to kind of challenge and surprise themselves when they get that job and feel better. >> there had been women practicing law for many years, but there were so few of them that a lot of the issues hadn't really come into play and some of them worked out and some are still

being resolved like equal pay and women in lawfirms and making sure women get fair assignments and in the decision making and working with law firms. i consider myself more of a beneficiary of all the women that fought really difficult battles along the way. >> >> shop and dine on the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by

supporting local services within neighborhood. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant. where will you shop and dine in the 49? san francisco owes the charm to the unique character of the neighborhood comer hall district. each corridor has its own personality. our neighborhoods are the engine of the city. >> you are putting money and support back to the community you live in and you are helping small businesses grow. >> it is more environmentally friendly. >> shopping local is very important. i have had relationships with my local growers for 30 years. by shopping here and supporting us locally, you are also supporting the growers of the

flowers, they are fresh and they have a price point that is not imported. it is really good for everybody. >> shopping locally is crucial. without that support, small business can't survive, and if we lose small business, that diversity goes away, and, you know, it would be a shame to see that become a thing of the past. >> it is important to dine and shop locally. it allows us to maintain traditions. it makes the neighborhood. >> i think san francisco should shop local as much as they can. the retail marketplace is changes. we are trying to have people on the floor who can talk to you and help you with products you are interested in buying, and

help you with exploration to try things you have never had before. >> the fish business, you think it is a piece of fish and fisherman. there are a lot of people working in the fish business, between wholesalers and fishermen and bait and tackle. at the retail end, we about a lot of people and it is good for everybody. >> shopping and dining locally is so important to the community because it brings a tighter fabric to the community and allows the business owners to thrive in the community. we see more small businesses going away. we need to shop locally to keep the small business alive in san francisco.

>> shop and dine in the 49 is a cool initiative. you can see the banners in the streets around town. it is great. anything that can showcase and legitimize small businesses is a wonderful thing. >> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador.

we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys.

>> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive. you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets.

when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good.

because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now.

a>> good morning, everyone. today is the october 26 meeting of the san francisco county transportation authority. good morning. i'm rafael mandelman. i chair this board. our vice chair is aaron peskin, our clerk is britney milton. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> yes, chair. [roll call] it's been a while since i've done this. [roll call continues]

melgar absent. [are call] [roll call] and one more call for commissioner chan. chan absent. ok. we have quorum. >> all right. thank you. i think you may have a public comment announcement to read. >> yes, chair. and i see that commissioner chan just popped on. so, should i just call her name? >> sure. >> commissioner chan? >> present. >> thank you.

chan present. um, all right. oh, and commissioner melgar as well. commissioner melgar? >> present, thank you. >> all right. we'll all here. ok. public comment will be available for each item on this agenda via telephone by calling 415-655-0001 and, when prompted, entering access code 2485-688-4769 and then pound and pound again. once you join, you will be able to listen to the meeting as a participant. to make public comment on an item when the item is called, dial star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. do not press star 3 again or you could be removed from the queue. when the system says your line sun muted, the live operator will advise that you will be allowed two minutes to speak.

when your two minutes are up, we will move on to the next caller. calls will be taken in the order in which they are received. best practices are to speak slowly, clearly and turn down the volume of any televisions or radios around you. if you wish to comment during the meeting, it is best to listen via the public comment line to avoid delay on the live stream of the meeting. >> thank you, madame clerk. please call item 2. >> chair's report. this is an information item. >> great. colleagues, this must be transportation authority celebrated the completion of two important transit and pedestrian safety projects in japan town and the fisherman's wharf area. i want to congratulate the m.t.a. on delivering the first phase of geary via the geary rapid project. it makes transit faster and more reliable by adding

dedicated red side bustlings, signal priority and decibels on one of san francisco's busiest transit corridors and brings much needed safety improvements along this high-injury corridor, including new crosswalks, recorrecting japan town with the fillmore and western tradition which were constructed by the geary expressway in the late 1960s. the transportation authority led environmental planning for the project and provided over $13 million to fund the project and i am pleased that the m.t.a. delivered the the project on time and on budget. and we can all hope this trend continues as the project continues westward to the richmond in phase two. secondly, i want to recognize public works for the successful completion of jefferson street, phase two. that project includes three blocks of streetscape improvements between powell and jones streets completing the design developed in the 2010 fisherman's wharf public realm plan, featuring widened

sidewalks, new landscaping and public seating. the project will improve pedestrian safety along a street that sees more than 60,000 pedestrians per day on a typical summer weekend with vice chair peskin's support, the transportation authority was a significant contributor to this project as well, providing $8 million or approximately half of the funding to complete this work from sales tax and state gas tax funds that we program. at the regional level, after many years of development, the association of bay area governments and metropolitan transportation commission adopted planned area 2050 as the region's long-range transportation and land use plan last week. it was not an easy process, but i do want to thank commissioners ronen and mar and our excellent staff at the t.k. for helping to ensure all of our transportation funding priorities were included in the final plan. as we wrote in a joint letter with mayor breed, we look forward to working with both agencies and colleagues

around the bay area to advanced regional rail, fund transit core capacity needs at muni, bart and cal train and improve transportation policies in the region and san francisco will certainly continue to play an active role in pushing plan bay area to encourage a more equitable development pattern throughout the region as planned strategies and policis are updated every four years. as part of this next focus on implementation, we appreciate m.t.c. staff's recommendation to allocate $30 million remaining in federal transit covid relief funds to sfmta to support rest nation muni service. thank you, commissioner ronen, for advocating in eke witable access at the m.t.a. and finally i want to take a moment as supervisor haney did, commissioner and supervisor haney did at last week's board meeting to remember becky hoe, a former transportation authority c.a.c. member representing district 6 who passed away earlier this month. becky was always highly involved in her community,

working on accessibility issues city-wide, serving on the pedestrian safety advisory committee including as its chair and later focusing on treasure island where she lived for many years and served ton treasure island development authority's community advisory board. we'll remember becky fondly for her legacy of community service and, with, that i conclude my remarks. and we should open those remarks up to public comment. >> there is no public comment, chair. >> all right. public comment on item 2 is closed. madame clerk, please call item 3. >> item 3, executive director's report. this is an information item. >> director chan. >> good morning, chair and commissioners. let me go ahead and begin at the federal level. of course, we're all tracking the preparation of the build back better act and potential

consensus in congress with the administration on an infrastructure bill. federal surface transportation programs are really dependent on passage of this as well as a third extension of the federal programs, in the event that there is no agreement, however, before the current extension expires on october 31, we will need to be ready to assist cal trans and other agencis that would be affected. it has been reported that the extension will be through december 3, however, which is the deadline for funding the federal government and raising the debt limit. so we're tracking both sort of the federal extension for current programs as well as the process for reaching agreement on the now smaller infrastructure bill, reducing it from $3.25 billion to $1.5 to $2 trillion as has been reported in the news. next, turning to the local level.

as you may have seen, the sfmta just recently announced their winter service plan restoration update. this looks like a 10% expansion in february of 2022. sfmta will restore service on the 2, 6, 10, 21 and 28-r. sfmta also plans to extend the 31 along 5th street to serve the cal train station at 4th and king and plans to extend the 43 to its prepandemic route. additional changes to other muni buses and light rail routes are also under consideration and this announcement follows extensive public outreach throughout the city and at the presentation at our board recently earlier in the month. there are about 4500 survey responses, 30 stakeholder meetings and other types of input. hopefully we can address many of the concerns that were

raised through further consultations, but the agency does plan to release a network proposal next month and will seek m.t.a. board of approval in december. moving back up to some local issues relating to autonomous vehicles. in late september, the california d.m.v. issued autonomous vehicle deployment permits to two operators. these employment permits allow the companies to make their autonomous technology commercially available and is a next step in allowing the companies to deliver ride hail or delivery services to the public. weymo received a driver deployment permit which allows an operator to charge funds while operating an autonomous vehicle but requires a safety operator in the front seat. they can now use their vehicles within parts of san francisco and san mateo counties on public roads with the maximum speed of up to 65 miles per hour on the freeway, including where there is rain and light fog.

crews received a driverless deployment permit, which permits an operator to charge funds while operating an a.v. withouts a safety operator in the front seat s. crews was granted permission to use its vehicles on public surface streets within designated parts of san francisco with a maximum speed limit of 30 miles per hour. including when there is rain and light fog. however, their permitted hours of operation are between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. so, we believe that they will be starting with delivery of, say, food services. now we know that both companies need to obtain a california p.u.c. permit to operationize these d.m.v. permits and commercial services so we'll keep you up to date as that rolls out. turning to our sales tax renewal work, they continue to bring a recommendation to the board in december for a new 30-year expenditure plan.

the group's fourth meeting is later this week on october 28 when they discuss transit enhancements such as a ferry based landing and cal train station which is also topic on today's agenda. major transit projects like muni train control and the bart core capacity program as well as some of the policis that shape how we administer these programs will also been the agenda. all of the meetings are virtual and open to the public and we're also actively engaging with the broader community on this effort through multiple methods, partnering with local c.b.o.s to hold focus group, including in spanish, chinese and russian this week and early next week. and we will be hosting two english town halls in early november. we do have a live survey online now for anyone to fill out and we can make those available in paper as well and to get more information, please visit our website at sftca/expenditure plan. this month i was very pleased

to join commissioners melgar and safai for an initial meeting at the ocean avenue corridor working group and action plan. as you will result, this is an effort that we funded earlier this year at the request of commissioner melgar and her n-tip program and it will document funding and implementation strategies to improve safety and access in circulation along the ocean avenue corridor for already identified and planned improvements as well as prioritize four to five new transportation improvements to a further level of detail to advance for near term funding opportunities. the task force members include district 7 and 11 residents and representives from the corridor's many schools, businesses and neighborhood organizations. at the first meeting, the task force members provided feedback on the scope and out reach plan for which we will be requesting prop-k funds at your next month's meetings. so we will see you back on

that topic next month. now turning to some management updates and administration updates. our august sales tax recreates came in. they were higher than july but they did lag the prepandemic levels. revenues of $7.9 million were received in august. these are 18% higher than in july. which was $6.7 million and they were, however, 23% lower than compared to august of 2019. we see an increasing overall trend in sales tax revenue which is we hope continues to rise. now to help with ensuring we have broad contracting throughout the city and our work, on october 21, we participated in the virtual meeting of meet the primes, an outreach event with members of the business outreach committee to connect and introduce small businesses to prime consultants and public

transportation agencies throughout the bay area. nine served as panelists in break out rooms to answer questions so small businesses can understand how to do business with them and what they need to do to get involved and contracting with public transit agencies. 90 people attended the event. and it is a multiagency consortium of approximately 26 bay-area transportation agencies with a common goal to assist small, disadvantageded and local firms doing business in transportation. now coming up in october -- november on the 17th, we will be hosting our own virtual d.p.e./l.b.e. disadvantaged and enterprise opportunity meetings. the firms -- interested firms can learn about the contracting opportunities from the t.a. agency at our website, sftpa.org/contracting if they can't make that meeting and i

want to offer our staff heartfelt condolences to the friendeds and family of becky to add to the chair's remarks. she was a very beloved member of our c.a.c. and we really are going to miss her and the impact she had in our work, especially on treasure island. thank you so much. >> thank you, madame director.

>> we have nine ayes and the minutes have final approval. >> and commissioner safai is aye as well. sorry about that. >> melgar as well. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. madame clerk, please call item 5 through 7, our consent agenda. >> item 5 through 7, comprise the consent agenda. these items were first approved at the october 19 board meeting and are now before the board for final approval. staff is not planning to present, but is available for questions. i would also like to acknowledge that we received one public comment as it relates to item 6 and it is posted to our website. >> thank you. is there a motion to approve our consent agenda?

thank you, vice chair peskin. thank you, commissioner ronen for the second. madame clerk, please call the roll on our consent agenda. >> for the final approval -- [roll call]

>> we have 11 ayes and the consent agenda is approved, finally. final approval. >> thank you. please call item 8. >> item 8, execute contract renewals and options for various annual professional services in an amount not to exceed $725,000. this is an action item. >> thank you. and i believe we have lily yiu here on this item. >> good morning, chair mandelman and commissioners. lily liu, principle

funded by a combination of federal and state trends as well as [inaudible] funds w.

that, i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. i do not see comments or questions from colleagues so let's open this item to public comment. >> there is no public comment. >> all right. public comment on item 8 is closed. please call for approval of item 8. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> for item 8 -- [roll call]

we have 11 ayes. the item has been aproved on its first reading. >> all right. thank you. please call item 9 . >> item 9. progress update on the cal train 22nd street station access study and the san francisco planning department southeast rail station study. this is an information item. >> all right.

>> thank you, sir mandelman. good morning, commissioners. geoffrey kahler. i'm here this morning to introduce this item which will provide a progress update on two prop-k funded planning studies being led by our agency partners, both of which relate to the caltrain corridor within san francisco. the transportation authority and multiple partner actions are working together on a comprehensive program of planning and investment that will transform the caltrain corridor in the coming years to serve an electrified caltrain starting in 2024 as well as future california high speed rail service. as the board is aware, we're working closely with the trans bay joint authority to procurement and construction within the next four to five years. concurrently, the transportation authority is leading planning and design studies for the pennsylvania avenue extension or pacs project, which will extend the corridor's tunnel

alignment further south from the d.t.x. in other words reconnect neighborhoods currently bisected by the service railroad. the pacs project may necessitate the relocation or replacement of the existing 22nd street station over the longer term. within this context, the san francisco planning department has been leading the southeast rail station study to evaluates potential future station locations in southeast san francisco. both near the current 22nd street station as well as in the bayview. and nah harvey will shortly provide an update on this work and our current public outreach efforts. in the immediate term, caltrain is improving accessability to the existing 22nd street station. anthony simmons, director of system-wide stations will first provide an update on caltrain's 22nd street station a.d.a. access feasibility study. anthony?

>> thank you. good morning. my name is anthony simmons and i'm director of system-wide stations and capital planning and as he noted aye like to take this opportunity tos provide a brief update to the board on access improvements that we're investing for 22nd street station. if you could please share the slides, nick. thank you. next slide, please. just looking ahead of it in context, when the j.p.b. took over the caltrain in the 1990s, it inherited many stations that weren't wheelchair accessible, including 22nd street station. we have been steadily upgrading those stations, some in the spoke projects specifically for access and then others part of a larger scope of projects just

overall general station improvements, for example. that is now with 22nd street and at the moment, 22nd street is accessible by stairs, but as an overall approach, caltrain is providing a system-wide access to the network. but we understand that the arrangement at 22nd street is not ideal so now there is a key opportunity to look at how we can better improve access for people who may need assistance so people with disabilities. the 22nd station is quite constrained, as you would be aware and that provides some limitation on what the type of improvements are that we could provide based upon the dimensions of the station, [inaudible] it's got a very long drop, about 22 feet in some places down below the surface and starts to limit the different opportunities

of what we might be able to look at doing. next slide, please. so, we kick off the study in february 2020 at the request of supervisor walton and this study was -- or is focused on determining the feasibility of some street level improvements. we only perform engineering analysis at a 15% design and then we also wanted to make sure that we took into account some of the longer term work that jeffery mentioned happening with southeast rail stations and which meant to take into account what the improvements could be based upon the current status of the station and what a potential future could look like. the study looked primarily at different ramp and elevator configurations and looked at constructability implementation, timeline costs and funding opportunities. next slide, please.

as part of this work, we completed quite a bit of outreach. and we completed outreach for groups as a general look at the different stakeholder groups across the general area where the station fits. but then also looking at more specific outreach for the community that would more specifically be tailored to the needs of the a.d.a. community and we made sure we got feedback on all the design alternatives as well as all the different criteria that will be used to evaluate those alternatives. next slide, please. so with the feedback we got, the most significant actually, was that ramps were actually preferred over elevators at this location. and that was primarily because there was some understanding that elevators tend to have maintenance sun news general based on

experience across transit systems around the area and elsewhere and then, of course, there was the frisk it's all elevators and there is an elevator that is out, then, you know, the station could be back to the current situation that it is as far as some of the limitations on access to get up and down into the station. there's also some concerns about being potential draws for vandalism and those types of things. but by and large, we did get ramps as an overall source of feedback. interestingly enough, we noted to the groups that those ramps, because of the distance, came an interesting 22 to platform level, they could be long ramps and while it's also not the most ideal type of ramp, it was still a much more palatable approach than looking at elevators.

but probably one of the biggest things was that the stakeholders took into account the fact that whatever needed to happen here was going to be making the best of the current situation, but an ultimate proper solution would be a full upgrade and replacement of the station at some point in the long-term. next slide, please. so, this is just a layout of what the recommended alternative is, both for the north and the southbound platforms. you can see the southbound -- the southbound platform is kind of this serpentine platform that has quite a bit of length to it. it's approximately about 465 feet or so. the equivalent of a city block in some places. but it is there to deal with keeping the slope as low as possible while still providing some sort of balance to, you know, of a length that still gets to be a little bit more reasonable.

in the northbound platform is a little bit shorter but, again, still going to be quite long to get down from the street level. again, just dealing with the height difference to get down there. and also included with this are some additional works i'm dealing with, improvinging tactiles and improving the surface that people use, the southbound platform has a lot of predominantly gravel and unpaved areas so this is part and parcel of improving overall station access and experience. next slide, please. so the next steps of this work is to present to the j.p.b. at its meeting next week. and this enwe'll finalize this report and then represent it to this board for its approval early next year. in order advanced the recommended alternative, we need look at being more specific on what the funding

needs would be and what we need to secure. we also need to conduct additional out reach or as part of the work and then also working to advance the designs through to 100% engineering, which we estimate would take about 2 1/2 years from starting that next phase and then getting through the construction and eventually close out. and with that, i believe i'm happy to take any questions. >> it doesn't look like there are any questions. thank you. >> anyway. >> supervisor? >> there we go. >> my apologies, chair mandelman. i didn't get into the chat quick enough. but i wanted to thank c.t.a. for getting into this study. it's very important, i believe, that this [inaudible] has been in operation for too long.

we know it is going to be a very expensive endeavor. but we need to not have stations that exist without being a.d.a. accessible. appreciate this and we'll continue to work on making that a reality. >> mr. kahler? >> so, our next presenter is anna harvey from the planning department. >> good morning, board members. anna harvey with the planning department staff here to provide an update on the southeast rail station study. our work is interdisciplinary and across agencies with trapsinger land use and transportation staff with s.f. planning along with sfpta and sfmta and caltrain. we praoernlt the ongoing input and advice from the 12c0ik9 office president wallton's office. and the work is jointly funded through prop-k and

m.t.c.s planning grant as well as planning department funds for a total budget of just over $500,000. this update will cover an overview of the study's scope and provide details on ongoing public engamement. next slide, please. while the caltrain study you just heard about from director simmons is exploring options to improve 22nd street station in the short and medium term, this work is looking at the medium to long-term. beginning in march of 2020, this study originally known as the 22nd street location study worked with the t.a.-lead pennsylvania avenue extension team to explore options should the extent of the packed tunnel require the redesign or relocation of caltrain 22nd street station. acknowledging the san francisco planning commission's charge to center our work program around racial and social equities through resolution 2738 as well as prior studies conducted by sfpta on a

potential oakville station, this study's scope was expanded to include a priority to restore regional rail access to the xwaiviews and hunter's point neighborhood. the work was then renamed to the southeast rail station study or surses. next slide, please. technical studies were done to identify all possible stations in the project area. the study considered track geometry. you can't build a station on a curve. physical barriers like hills and caoex as well as the distance between stations and we also looked at existing and future land use and existing and kind of planned major developments in the area. the study revealed six possible locations in the project area, which is between existing 4th and king or future 4th and townsend as well as existing bayshore station in the south. there are three options for 22nd street and three options for a bayview station. these locations are shown here based on the nearest

cross street. for 22nd street, the station could either stay approximately where it is, but rebuild or ship it into a tunnel or shifted north to around mariposa street or souths to cesar chavez. the option at mariposa would be deep inside the future pacs tunnel. the option at cesar chavez would be on the surface near where a longest version of the potential packed tunnel might end. regional rail access from the bayview was made much more difficult in 2005 when caltrain closed the former paul avenue station due to low ridership.

most recently, the work jointly lead between s.f. planning and sfmtat connect s.f. investment strategy included a new bayview station as a priority. and the sfmta led bayview community-led transportation plan recommended a station at oakdale as one of their eight major policy recommendations out of that work. there have been a number of subsequent changes to land uses and other factors at oakdale including the development of a new site for the southeast community facility at 3rd and evans avenue. acknowledging these changes we conducted an assess of three stations including oakdale as well as williams and evans avenue. next slide, please. a quick refresher on the pacs alignment at the conclusion of the rail alignment and benefits study which was led by the planning department. staff recommended the continuation of the planned downtown rail extension or d.t.x. tun frel the fourth and king railyard south along 7th street and pennsylvania avenue. the pacs achieves the goal of separating high speed rail passenger rail as well as caltrain from san francisco streets. it provides immense benefits by ensuring local automobile and people movements in mission bay neighborhoods would be spared from conflicts with trains at these two major intersection,

mission bay drive and 16th street. s the extent of the pax are currently under study by sfmta but we worked closely with your staff throughout. next slide, please. this sketch shows a potential oakdale station concept in the context of the surrounding community. looking north, you can see the station platform stretching between oakdale and gerald avenues with access from gerald and a future connector road. this sketch style communicates the early stage of concept development that we're currently in and a series of these sketches for each station option has been developed and they will be presented at our second round of public outreach. next slide, please. speaking of public out reach, the planning department, caltrain as well as the t.a. are collaborating on a series of virtual public meetings to inform and engage the public on these related efforts. the primary focus of this

outreach effort has been on equity with the goal of reaching khunlts that may not have had the opportunity to weigh in on these projects in the past. with this in mind, our outreach for these events has focused on community-based organizations in the spanish and cantonese speaking communities along with those in the bayview close to the potential station site there is and translation was offered and utilized at our first round of virtual public meetings. we recorded the sessions in english and spanish and cantonese. next slide. thank you. our first round of public meetings was held in october and focused on project backgrounds, purpose, and related studies. we also presented at caltrain c.a.c. as well as the planning commission just last week and then are here at the board and c.a.c. for the t.a. this week. a second round of public outreach will be held on november 4 and november 6. also virtually.

this second round will focus on a review and discussion of the potential rail station locations in order to hear community feedback and concerns. and tomorrow evening we'll be presenting to the tacac and machine to return to the board at the conclusion of this work in the first part of 2022. more information and registration for the upcoming out reach is available on our project website, which is www.sfplanning.org sl, serss. thank you. with that, i'll take any questions. >> thank you. seeing none, let's open this item -- well, mr. kahler. oh. commissioner walton. >> thank you so much. chair, again, i just want to say thank you to planning and everyone for all of their work on the improvements around the station and, of course, additional cal train

stations for the southeast sector of san francisco. appreciate all the work and looking forward to getting this done so we can find the resources to make it happen. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner walton. mr. kahler, if you don't have anything else, we'll open this up to public comment. let's do that. >> ok. hello, caller. your two minutes will begin now. >> caller: good morning. supervisor strong from san jose. so, the first thing i'd like to bring to your attention, it is very important that this is being presented to the board before the c.a.c. because if it was the other way around, the c.a.c. would be able to engage into substantial discussions and then feedback to the [inaudible] and would be able

to engage in discussion. but here are my comments so far. it's not a question of either cesar chavez or mariposa station. the current answer is actually both. the mariposa station needs to be relocated [inaudible] the proposal for the station becomes redundant. now with regards to phasing, 22nd street station will continue to have service as long as caltrain provides service to the [inaudible] station. but when it opens, then you can start providing service at cesar chavez, at mariposa or 7th street or whatever and the trans bay transit center. 22nd street will be closed at the exact same time as the

[inaudible] terminate and everything transfers to the transit center. thank you. >> thank you, caller. there are no more callers. >> all right. public comment on item 9 is closed. thanks to our presenters for all of their work. and we will move on to our next item. madame clerk, please call item 10. >> item 10, 101 mobility action plan update. this is an information item. >> i believe we have eliza potts. >> good morning, chair mandelman and board members. i will be giving an overview of the 101 mobility action plan. hopefully you can see any screen.

great. ok. so, the 101 mobility action plan was a regional and multiagency effort to identify noninfrastructure transportation demand management actions to maximize the benefits of planned transportation projects along the u.s. 101 corridor. the actions identified in the plan are that of policies and programs to support people when they can and making travel by car more reliable for those that need to drive. the three project goals were established through a series of workshops with the project management team and steakholder advisory groups. the mobility options in the plan were developed and evaluated based on their ability to bring reliable travel times to the corridor, prioritize high capacity modes, like buses and car pools and foster healthy and sustainable communities near the freeway.

the 101 map actions can build on and be incorporate into many existing planned projects. express lanes already exist from santa clara to redwood city an additional 22 miles are being built to extend the network to i380 by 2022. san ma toy yo is currently studying an additional extension of the lanes from i-380 to the san francisco county line. and in san francisco t transportation authority is leading environmental planning for a study of managed lanes but would begin at the county line and extend to king street along 101 and 280 along with expanded express bus service. in addition to these lanes, there's also projects along the corridor that include cal train electrification and modernization and the feasibility study and the el camino reliability study. existing conditions portions

of the 101 map identified key challenges that drove the need for the study. traffic along the corridor causes unpredictable trip times and they need to add almost 50 minutes to their trip. the lanes are not being used as efficiently as they could be, there's increasing congestion that leads to an experience of twice as much travel delay as there was in 1998 and is also disproportionate health burdens for communities along the corridor and all three counties, the rate of asthma attacks is higher in the study area than in the counties overall. also know that these are intersectional issues and based on the project's survey efforts, households earning less than $50,000 per year are more likely to have trips

to school or jobs with a strict start time, meaning that the unpredictable travel times can cause a greater impact. project outreach included technical advisory groups, a stakeholder advisory group and community engagement. there is a public survey open from june to august 2019, which received about 23s00 responses. the survey asked about travel along the 101 today. barriers that people experienced traveling or living near the corridor and how people travel choice might change with certain incentives or programs. building offers out reaches best practices and key studieses. the map identified as nearly 60 mobility actions. each of the actions was scored against performance metrics for three goal areas shown on the loeft side of the screen and, in addition to this, there is also an assessment of equity and implementation.

outreach affirmed that equity can either be max miami-dade or lost in the implementation process and so the project team used the equity framework to identify equity actions for each of the 60 mobility actions in the report. the equity actions intend to address barriers that travelers may experience and a consistent element of the equity actions the need to work with communities to co-develop solutions throughout a project's development and implementation. moving forward, project partners will use the 101 map to continue to coordinate and collaborate for state, regional and federal grants. and locally the 101 map actions will be incorporated and promoted through existing projects, connect s.f. and other long-range planning efforts. building on 101 maps, the 101 to 80 managed lanes projects is currently in the early

stages of environmental studies and we are beginning to conduct traffic operations analysis with caltrans. we're conducting the 101-280 equity study to establish an equity strategy for travelers along the corridor. the 101 map actions can be implemented by public and private entitieses and can be incorporated into planning and capital projects and can be packaged together with infrastructure projects to be more come pettive for funding. in san francisco, we are advancing actions through our managed lanes projects which i just mentioned and advancing express bus service, supporting transit improve. -- improvements parallel to the corridor and promoting transit equity program. in addition to our current efforts, we can also incorporate actions into future projects. some examples of actions are on the screen.

and include co-creating solutions with equity priority communities and employer [inaudible] to work trips and combination of incentives and rewards to encourage people to make trips without a car. more information on the project, along with the details and outreach summary is available on the project website, which is 101mobilityactionplan.com. thank you. with that, i'll take any questions. >> thank you. seeing no comments or questions, let's open this item to public comment. >> there is no public comment. >> all right. public comment on item 10 is closed. madame clerk, please call item 11.

>> item 11, introduction of new items. this is an information item. >> looks like no one's jumping in the queue. madame clerk, please call item 12. >> item 12, general public comment. >> let's hear from our public commenters. >> ok. i was just about to say we have no callers, but one put their hand up. hold on just a moment. hello, caller. your two minutes will begin now. >> caller: hello again, commissioners. so, the first thing i'd like to do this morning is to thank the sfpta and m.t.c. for allowing public transportation of the executive hearing committee,

otherwise known as e.s.c. meetings. having said that, i would like either the sfpt or m.t.c. to take over responsibility for opening these meetings. [inaudible] to record these meetings or make the recordings available at the later date. now this is becoming really important as we advance into this project. because the record that we have to present to the t.a. and other agencies is essentially participation in the minutes and that is it. and we started seeing problems back in may when they're preparing the phasing study, which eventually was the basis for [inaudible] north of $30 million. it's that they're withdrawing material as an example.

the operations analysis is completely missing. the reason it's completely missing is because of what happened later. it became very obvious from the operations analysis, some of the proposals [inaudible] in a way that is basically redundant. and basically the entire thing that they presented to you that this basis -- >> 20 seconds. >> caller: i would say that by now approximately 50% have disappeared. so moving forward if you could please make it possible to not only record, but hold the recordings of these meetings at a later date would be much appreciated. thank you. >> thank you, caller. there are no more callers for public comment. >> all right. public comment on item 12 is closed. madame clerk, please call our next stem. >> item? 13, adjournment. >> thank you.

we're adjourned, everybody. >> thank you, commissioners.