jobs and goes by different names. he needs an rmo, managing supervisor, one to pay to hire to work with. first has criminal charges, lost his license. this is his first mentor and boss. all kinds of corruption, professional business code violations, a lot of stuff going on quickly. loses the license. flipped into a new rmo. we have a lot of proposed solutions. civil harassment and we disagree. this is a soft demo that should be looked at and given one permit. this is our ask. i want one cohesive changes. go for it.

give us one permit,some direction. >> angyou. >> we will he hear from dr. brawn. >> it is hard to imagine four story remodel. i have the list of requirements here i think it is unfair to the neighbors who have gone through this process as we would have expected. it minimizes the role of the formal permitting process if you can get away with four story remodel this way. we are sets a precedent that is a disservice to the community. 2. when i look at the checklist. return deck and stairs less than 50%. i don't know what that means.

they are redoing the decks 100%. why would they check it off? in addition, i don't know whererd is. whether or not this demolition involved 75 to 100% of the interior. 100% of the interior is involved less the basement. i am not sure how that is excused. please, building department, planning department, tell me how this meets these criteria. i really worry for setting precise department. lastly, the tenant shared it. can that not be shared with the group?

>> we provided public comment to the commissioners. >> thank you. we will hear from lion patterson. you have six minutes. >> i will try to respond briefly. commissioner swig asked about the kitchen remodel permits mentioned previously. i just want to clarify there were two permits issued prior to this work being done, prior to the current owner purchasing the property. i will share my screen to show that. this is the 2018 permit for kitchen remodel. cabinets, flooring, paints,

walls, doors, opening, bath remodel. remove replace tiling. installing 5/eighth drywall on front room office. this is active in the system. this is a revision permit to add additional work from 2018. wood floor removed and replaced. paneling replaced. dry wall repaired. this is also shown as still active. it sounds like three permits may be expired now but not updated in pts. maybe we need to renew them. we will discuss that after this hearing.

commissioner swig asked is it a bad actor. he took a long time to grant access to d.b.i. the permit holder has new advisers. my involvement is more recent. along with others. hopefully you will see at this point and have seen already cooperation granting access working with the inspectors. my hope is that we will continue. i have to respond to the attacks. i hear and she feels threatened by the work going on next door. feel threatened because the owners are young or that they work in real estate? that is not right. to criticize the permit holder because a former business

partner had licensing problems. he parted ways with him. that can't be held against this permit holder. that they had a licensing problem. i am happy to answer questions. this is thoroughly discussed. they went through the proper process and scope of work qualifies for the process. they include the screening measures to mitigate any privacy impacts and shadow impacts are not significant at all. thank you very much. i am happy to answer any questions. >> question from president swig, then commissioner honda.

>> you went too fast. i am ahead of you. i am in a different time zone. virtual works for me this week. did you say that that permit for the kitchen was no longer a valid permit. was that per myth issued to your clients or a predecessor owner? >> prior owner. >> is it legal to carryover or appropriate or standard operating procedure to carryover is permit such as this to -- i would know if we had a big commercial building in downtown

san francisco under construction, yes, the contractor would carryover permits. in this situation like this where the contractor is not staying the same or owner is not the same and is it legal, appropriate, started operating procedure, anyway kosher to assume that previous permit is valid for your purposes? >> it is common to transfer property with permits with entitlements. i notice on both of the 2018 permits the authorized agent is listed as the owner. i don't have further information about the details. it is a few years backna.

perhaps senior inspector green can answer about permits transferred between owners. to my knowledge that is common and normal. >> one more question. when it comes to your time please answer the question as to whether the transfer and use of the preissued permit. my final question is this gentleman you represented last year providing the plans to the planning department in a timely fashion? >> no. that is another clients. i didn't have a chance to check. >> commissioner honda.

>> right now i think the current status of the property is three or four stories? >> i believe it is a three store building. yes, three stories. >> the current status now is the building is gutted and all of the sheetrock removed. is that where the building is at now. >> my understanding the sheetrock is removed. >> from all level? >> i would have to defer to the permit holder. >> contractor is here. >> only sheetrock removed framing the same. >> all sheetrock is removed. is your intention all mu sheetrock and new electrical and

plumbing and heating. >> goal is all new building up to code. >> either from you or mr. total cost of the work to be done. >> i can pull up the permit at issue. >> the suspended permit. valuation and this is according to d.b.i. formula. not actual construction cost. value at $110,000. >> i saw another permit for $40,000? another permit for 40. is that all of the permit for

the property at this point? >> happy to go through the full list of permits. there is the subject permit which is $110,000. there is second permit to replace windows in the front. 10 windows $9,000. next permit to comply with complaint. one kitchen and one-half restroom remodels in kinds. rewire electricity, new subpanel and main panel, plumbing and mechanical work. concrete walkway and backyard. that is one of the questions if they have a permit. it is covered here.

valuation $40,000. >> total cost $199,000 to fully demo the three levels? >> this is building department formulas. >> it seems light for the scope of work to be performed on the property, right? ada is $150,000 on one level. thank you. >> planning department. you have six minutes. >> thank you very much. tina tam. the basement structure. to go ahead and respond to the appellant's questions about the deck being something that should are required neighborhood

notification. to be clear if you are replacing or repairing a deck more than 50% what is there now, if it is located in the required rear yard and more than 10 feet in height, then it does trigger a neighborhood notification. as we know, the new stairs proposed one story. less than 10 feet. pulled back three feet. no firewall required. it is within the buildable area of the lot. neighborhood notification not required. therefore can be removed and approved over the counter. i have no other comments. thank you. >> dr. green six minutes. >> to address the question about 50% or more than 50%, from

d.b.i. point of view stairs less than 50% that is a repair. you can get building approval without plans. more than 50% it is replacement and plans must be submitted. the soft demo. it is just sheetrock and plastery moved from walls. interior frames is intact. there is questions about the value of the permit. the issue right now $159,000. permit that has value of $40,000. that is the value estimate by the applicant. plan checkers will reevaluate that. 2018 permit value less than

$100,000. those were good for 360 days. they should have expired. somebody has to go in and expire them. they show issued, the permits are expired. i will manually expire those tomorrow. they would have to be renewed. any questions i am not getting at? >> would you expect that this is an experienced contractor investor by their own brag. i saw this on the internet. this is part of the testimony. by their own brag they are experienced contractors, real estate investors who it would seem would be sophisticated to know if they bought a property

that what you explained they should already know. they shouldn't be proceeding to start the demo and reconstruction on a permit that is obviously therefore not valid even though it hasn't been canceled for whatever reason by d.b.i. again, what do you do with this? this is a blatant abuse. do it now and beg for forgiveness later? what do you do about this? i don't want this happening again. this happens all of the time. it makes us upset because this has nothing to reflect on yourself as the department.

frustration. what are we going to do about this so that we disincentivize this behavior of do the bad deed now especially when you know it is bad and pray for forgiveness. what is the penalty? >> the board of supervisors have a new ordinance to get extra scrutiny. like you said there are penalties attached to the permit application. they go ahead and do this. hoping this new compliance control list will limit this behavior in the future. >> in your opinion, you know, i said before it seemed that this

was a tactic. it is a strategy accompanied by a tactic. we know we are going to save penalties here. the time and money associated with filing for the permit, going through the hoops is well worth the penalties we are facing. what are the penalties actually? >> permit fee penalties? >> for doing what we are seeing happening. there are going to be penalties assessed. how much are the penalty? >> it is nine times the permit fee. work without permit, beyond scope is two times. >> the permit fee was what, please? >> i don't have that in front of me. >> can you proximate?

>> probably 3-$4,000. >> they are placed at risk 35, $40,000 to get this thing finished and on the market to get it sold and figuring the faster to market and cut through the bs that it is going to be worth that $40,000 potentially? >> there is also the bad boy list as you mentioned before. not necessarily this case but referral to the city attorney for litigation. >> the reason i digress. the more we expose this behavior that is going to help you and this commission not have to pays this stuff in the future. thank you. >> commissioner honda.

question. >> sorry. we are on the same line of questioning. on this board we hear a lot of appellants members of the public upset developers contractors breaking the law and we need new legislation. overall, as i have contended in the books already. this particular i want to be very specific. this particular permit holder demoed property without -- to get people ahead. is there a physical penalty for starting work seven months prior to getting the permit? >> if this is scheduled for director hearing it would probably result in order of

abatement against the property. there would be extra fees attached. >> those are split specifically, what are those fees? >> i don't have those numbers in front of me. >> is there a specific penalty? >> yes. it is a violation. >> the other thing is $199,000 to do three level over a garage is a little light considering that plywood is $78 a sheet and two by fours are 10 bucks. i would hope the department would review that more closely. >> thank you, commissioners. this matter is submitted. >> commissioners somebody want to start the conversation on this? >> i will. i think although to the

appellants this is rough for you guys. you live there. what is before us today you have seen the commissioners ask serious questions. they are within the building envelope and got ahead of the project. it appears to be code compliant. the department is there on the big radar with another project. i don't see any reason to grant the appeal. i believe the permits although they got ahead of themselves were properly issued. without further conversation my motion would be deny the appeal the permits are properly issued. >> commissioners any other comments? mr. lopez, lazarus? >> no. >> i just want to echo what you have experienced here is this commission's quite often frustration. we are going to deny an appeal.

realizing there has been some behavior which is not in keeping with the behavior we would like to see in the city of san francisco. behavior affecting neighbor versus neighbor. i am sorry to the appellant but i have to support commissioner honda's motion. >> can we vote? >> yes. >> motion from commissioner honda to demy appeal uphold permit on the basis properly issued. (roll call). >> that motion carries 4-0. the appeals are denied. >> thank you. we are moving to item 9.

the adoption of the budget. commissioners before you for discussion and possible adoption is the budget for fiscal years 23-24. you have had an opportunity to look at the budget in advance. we can quickly go through a few pages or for the benefit of commissioner lopez who wasn't here last year. during budget time basically if you look on page 3. also, i want to announce that vice president lazarus has to leave. she will not participate in this. thank you, vice president lazarus. >> page 3, commissioner lopez the board gets revenues in two ways. surcharges on permits majority. 97% of the budget surcharges on

permits issued by the various city departments. moving through on page 4. 65% of the board's budget covers salary and fringe. not much to do about that. basic costs. large chunk to services to the department 29%. minor expenses. special services, supplies. if we continue on right now we have a projected deficit and last year we did have a deficit apdid just fine. i am not important weed. we have money to cover shortfalls. six months makes a big difference. we will see what happens at the end of the fiscal year.

looking at page 9 for the fiscal year 23-24 budget. every year the controller does surcharge analysis in april to determine the appropriate surcharges. basically surcharges can be adjusted in two ways. cpi or through legislation. if it is increase beyond be cpi. we will see in the surcharge analysis based on the number of appeals for the department, etc. if you have any questions, let me know. brief summary. it is late. >> thank you and staff for doing an amazing job and for preparing this. you are lucky that commissioner fong is no longer here. he used to have a ton of questions regarding the budget and always added stuff.

unless anyone has a question i will make that motion. >> i am going to make a comment. the hour is late. i am an hour later than all of you. >> you are a year or two older. >> i am a grandfather. there you go. just one of the tensions here is with regard to fees. we have had some rathertum you rather largeyears. i have been here seven years. in that time when i joined we had -- thing things were rocking and rolling. there was a significant surplus in fees. therefore, the controller's office in their judgment put a

cap on fees. i think reduced a few fees. my concern was there will be araneida. we will need those extra funds that we are put anything our surplus. look what happened. we ran into the last two years which has been a pretty good rainy day. we have eaten up the surplus and had deficit although it is not terminal. for commissioner lopez, it is impossible to have it be an exact science. it would sometimes go counterintuitive to what we might do in the private sector where we want to have a rainy day fund because in the city

controller doesn't want to put too much burden on the citizens and on the filers. this is some of the dynamics in her good judgment julie and her staff go through to put together the budget because i know that i have no idea the future is going to bring. it is difficult. we don't know next year how many new -- how much money will be for new construction, additions or whatever. god help us we have another pandemic. it is hard work. i want to give that background to commissioner lopez and remind ourselves how hard it is to do these things. i want to compliment julie and

her staff for completing it. >> do we have a motion from commissioner honda. >> we did. >> to adopt the budget? >> i believe we did. >> do we have a quorum the three of us? >> yes. >> i make a motion to accept it and thank you and the staff for everything you do. >> thank you. commissioner honda's motion. commissioner lopez. >> aye and i echo the thank you. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that carries 3-0. budget is adopted. >> thank you so much. have a great night everybody. we have next week off. see you in two weeks. we are adjourned.

>> good afternoon, everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the february 14th, 2022 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. happy valentine's day to everyone. i am the chair of the committee. i am joined by supervisor

preston and supervisor aaron peskin. the committee clerk today is erica major. i want to thank and acknowledge the folks at san francisco government t.v. for staffing this meeting. thank you, madame clerk. do you have any announcements? >> the minutes will reflect that this committee are participating in a remote meeting via videoconference. i'm getting a little bit of feedback. okay. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and invite public participation. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. each speaker will be allowed to minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling (415)655-0001.

(415)655-0001. the meeting id is 2-497-689-2798. 2-497-689-2798 and press pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak quietly and slowly and turned on your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment by e-mailing us. if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and made part of the official file. comments may also be sent via u.s. postal service to the city hall.

finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board agenda of march first, otherwise -- unless otherwise stated. madame chair? >> thank you very much. please call item one. >> i'm so sorry, my internet is one key. did you ask me to call item number 1? >> yeah. >> it is an ordinance amending the planning code to designate one montgomery street, a.k.a. 125 montgomery street as a landmark consistent with the standards set forth in the planning code and assert appropriate findings. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call the number on the screen. that number is (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 2-497-689-2798. press pound and pound again if

you have not done so already. please press star three to line up to speak. the system will indicate you have raised your hand in confirmation. >> thank you. thank you supervisor peskin for introducing this item. you have the floor. >> thank you, madame chair, supervisor preston, and thank you for a year ago voting to initiate the land marking of one montgomery street, which the board unanimously approved and subsequently went to the historic preservation commission. the historic preservation commission unanimously voted to recommend it for landmark designation that is before us today. one montgomery is significant for its association with the reconstruction of the financial district, following the 1906 earthquake and fire. it is architecturally and historically significant. it is a well-preserved example of an earlier 20th century

banking temple and italian renaissance revival style with, as you will see in a moment, a grand interior, with high artistic value. i'm reading from the landmark designation ordinance itself. it was designed by a recognized master architect, louis poke and in includes masterwork from master craftsman arthur putnam. i want to think the planning department for their excellent case report and for being here to present today. we will turn it over to them. >> thank you. i have a brief slide presentation, if i can pull that up here.

sorry, just one minute. >> it is attached to our committee packet if you are having trouble. we can have missed major put it up. >> yeah, i'm sorry. i might have to do that. it is not letting me. >> no problem. erica, do you want to do that? >> sorry, there we go. >> thank you. sorry about that. good afternoon, supervisors. i am from the planning department. before you as supervisor peskin mentioned is an ordinance for landmark designation of one montgomery street, which is also known as 125 montgomery street

and as the crocker national bank building. next slide, please. the board's resolution initiating landmark designation of one montgomery street was heard by the historic preservation commission on august 4th, 2021. at the hearing, the commission heard comments in support of the designation from one public comment or. the commission voted 6-0 with commissioner wright recused, to approve a resignation -- a resolution landmark designation. finding, as supervisor peskin had mentioned, the property is historically significant force association with reconstruction in the financial district following the 1906 earthquake and fire and the building is architecturally and historically significant of an excellent example of early 20th century banking temple, with ornate and richly detailed interiors that exhibit high artistic value and our the works of master

architects and craftsmen. with a period of significance of 19 -- 1908 to 1924. one montgomery street retains one of one of downtown san francisco's most imposing and historically publicly accessible spaces and its finest predepression banking hall interiors. described in splendid survivors, san francisco's downtown architectural heritage as a grand interior with its sumptuous furnishings, fluted columns and ceiling. the character defining features outlined in the landmark ordinance include interior spaces and finishes in the 1908 elevator lobby, 1908 and 1920 banking halls and the basement lobby and main vault as would be warranted for such ornate spaces. next slide, please. that completes my presentation unless you have any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> thank you so much. colleagues, do we have any questions or comments for her? >> i don't. she has done a great job, as usual. thank you. >> thank you. madame clerk, let's go to public comment on this item then. >> madame chair, we are checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have not done so already and would like to speak, please press star three and the system will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates that you have been on muted and you may begin your comments. we have nine listeners today with one in the queue. let's take that caller, maria. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i am from san francisco heritage calling in support of this landmark designation. just in setting alone, one montgomery is an amazing candidate for landmark. everybody can see it therefrom market street and recognize the workmanship of louis poke, one of the city's most renowned architects. i want to also say, put a bug in your ear that this beautiful building, what makes it so amazing is the public accessibility. i hope that in future, that any use for this building takes that into account. it is our shared heritage and needs to be accessible to the public. thank you again so much for this. we are in full support of this landmark. >> thank you, woody. >> thank you for your comments. that concludes the queue. >> thank you so much, madame clerk. public comment on this item is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this to the full board

with a positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> thank you. madame clerk, please call roll call. >> on that motion this. [ roll call ] >> you have three ayes. >> that motion passes. thank you, supervisor peskin. madame clerk, please call item number 2. >> it is an ordinance amending the planning code to designate the fresco titled allegory of california and the grand stairwell between tenth and 11th floors of the city club of san francisco as a landmark consistent with standards set forth in article 10 of the planning code and affirming appropriate findings. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item two should call the number on the screen. that number is (415)655-0001. the meeting id is

2-497-689-2798. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, press star three to line up to speak. the system will prompt that you have raised your hand and confirmation. madame chair? >> thank you so much, madame clerk. again, supervisor peskin, thank you for introducing this item. the floor is yours. >> thank you chair mel guard and supervisor preston. i will keep it brief. i want to thank my colleagues for their unanimous support in initiating the landmark designation of diego rivera's first work in san francisco and thank the planning department staff for the case report. it is a great read if you have not read it. and thank you to the historic preservation commission for their unanimous support. this is -- i know you have seen

this, at the tenth floor of the pacific stock exchange, the san francisco stock exchange known as the city club, which was a dining facility associated with the stock exchange. the year of significance is 1931 when mr. rivera and a remarkable crew of artists puts that true fresco in place. it is the second of diego rivera's works that the board of supervisors is landmark king. the first being at his second undertaking at the art institute on russian hill. there is one more diego rivera work that has yet to be landmark. it is temporarily at the s.f.

moma, but someday will be returned to your district, supervisor. and at some point we will get around to land marking the third. i know they have already done all of the research. she is ready to go. i don't want to put words in her mouth, and i really want to thank the community that you will hear from. you are also in receipt of a letter dated from yesterday from them, and with that, i will turn it over to you. >> thank you again, supervisor peskin. missed major, if you can share my slides for this one, please. >> absolutely. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am planning department staff. as you have heard before you today is landmark resignation of

diego rivera's fresco titled "allegory of california, which is located on the wall and ceiling of a grand staircase in the city cab -- club of san francisco. the spaces formally known as a stock exchange. again, as mentioned, allegory of california it was created by diego rivera with assistance from viscount john hastings, clifford white, and a plasterer named matthew barnes. the work was done between december 1930 and march 1931 of the beginning of rivera's first visit to san francisco. this is the first fresco painted by him in the united states. next slide, please. the board's resolution is initiating landmark designation of allegory of california that was heard by the historic preservation commission on november 3rd, 2021. at the hearing, the commission

heard comments in support of the designation from three public commenters and they heard from legal council of the property owner who spoke against the designation. the commission voted 7-0 to approve a resolution recommending designation. the fresco is culturally and historically significant force association with a mexican artist, diego rivera. as the first artist work painted in the united states, it is also significant for its influence on the new deal era mural program and the mural is a movement of the 1960s and 1970s. further, the fresco is significant for its association with the latin x arts communities. a significant and vibrant part of san francisco's cultural heritage.

it is located in the upper floors of an office building. it has been accessible in several ways including at his grand unveiling in 1931 and also through curity -- curity lead tours. and other events in cooperation with san francisco heritage or the art deco society. they promote the fresco as the future of the rental facilities. as well as the city club have maintained limited hours will numbers of the public could view the fresco and other architecture and art work inside the club, and also, as shown in the newspaper clippings, there

have been various parties or other special events, including fundraisers, fashion shows, and other celebratory parties with celebrities, as noted in newspaper clippings in your file. last slide, please. that concludes my presentation, unless you have any questions. thank you. >> and not to put too fine a point on it, but relative to her statements with regard to public access, council for the property owner being one martin brown, and council being andrew junius, claim that pursuant for article 10 of the planning code that this is not a publicly accessible building, so the record clearly shows that it is, and the land marking of this

interior fresco is appropriate. i want to thank victoria wong, the deputy city attorney for looking into this issue and confirming that we have every mark -- every right to landmark it, even if they don't like it. >> thank you so much, supervisor peskin. before we take public comment i wanted to say a couple things. i want to be added as a cosponsor. thank you so much for this. i just wanted to talk a little bit about how important this mural is to the latino community in san francisco. because of what it is. diego rivera was the giant of the art world, as was his wife, freda kahlo. san francisco was an important part of their personal history. they were also very important part of our history. and what is depicted in the mural that you also sponsored to landmark before is that it shows

the interaction between mexico and san francisco in terms of looking at the industrialization of our country, of the indigenous, of the working class, of everything that was going on and how artists and intellectuals in mexico and in san francisco were thinking about it. it is really, really important for the latino community to be recognized for its contribution, and specifically the movement of mexican artists that spawned the murals and all of the things that later became such an important part of showing places for the mexican and latino community in san francisco. i just want to thank you for this recognition of the contribution of the very important mexican artist to the life of our city, but also how important our city was to diego rivera and freda kahlo.

thank you so much. i am really looking forward to the public comment on this one. supervisor preston, please go ahead. >> thank you. thank you supervisor peskin for your leadership. please add me as a cosponsor as well. >> thank you, supervisor preston. madame clerk, let's go to public comment on this one. >> okay. adding your additional cosponsor. we are checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. if you haven't done so already and would like to speak, press star three to be added to the cue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been on muted. it looks like we have 14 listeners today with two in the queue. let's take the first color, please. >> by the way, dr. judy baca who is expert on this matter, is under a time constraint. if she can go first, that would

be great. i don't know -- >> i just realized that she was on. judy, if we can identify her in the queue. >> there's only two speakers, so it is probably -- >> let's see. we only see the last six numbers. we would have to know what numbers they are calling from. >> i see. okay. let me try to find out. let's go ahead and take the first public comment and i will find out. >> thank you. >> hi, this is alan martinez. i am calling in support of the land marking. i contributed to the letter that the san francisco latino historical society submitted in terms of the section on the way that rivera masterfully integrated the architecture in the painting. for example, if you look at the

painting, the stone ledge is moving out from the landing and the figures appear to be stepping up in the opposite direction as if they were going on a stair in the opposite direction. it is the full height. anyway, in the letter i detail the way in which this painting really is part of that space. is part of the stairway and part of the movement upwards. we didn't say anything about the message of the painting, but it doesn't look overtly political, but it is subtly political because he is not showing the abundance of california merely as objects. he is not just showing fruits and vegetables and gold, he is showing the workers. if you remember your mark one '01 and marxism, the value of

any object is due to the labor put into it. it is not from the thing in and of itself. he is showing the abundance of california being the result of the work that has gone into california, including manual labor and science. that is his subtle political message. but the main point i was making is that it has -- if moved into another space, it would not have the same effect. it would completely integrate into the architecture. thank you. >> i will add, as set forth in the case report, the man who helped get him to do this mural said that he held the purse strings and would make sure it wasn't too radical. >> let's take the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i am from san francisco heritage. just a follow-up, the selection of an avowed communist to adorn the walls of a capitalist institution was very extensively discussed in the press at the time, and the selection of a mexican artist to complete the american commission was divisive amongst a lot of the san francisco arts community. despite these criticisms, this fresco is one of rivera's most significant and well-known works. we continue to be a champion of san francisco's diverse public art and this significant piece is a cultural mainstay. it is worthy of protection, embodying the city judy social and artistic movement. i can't add on any more eloquently than the previous caller or supervisor -- supervisors and how important it is to show different communities and the work they bring to the city. thank you again for your consideration.

>> that concludes the queue. if the presenter is in the line, we would like to see if they could raise their hand and if they would press star three right now, we can try to unmute them. i'm not sure. there are 14 listeners. >> we may have lost her. thank you so much. do we want to give it a minute or two? supervisor peskin. i think we are okay. okay. can we have a motion? >> two more hands popped up. >> thank you. >> let's take the next caller. >> hi, everyone. i am calling in support of having this become a historic

landmark. it is crucial in our city. i find it is becoming harder and harder for the general public, especially low income families, the working class, and people of color to have access to historic landmarks that reflect their experiences. i believe it deserves to stay where it was originally completed and to be accessible to the general public. that is all. thank you. >> thank you so much. let's take the last caller. [ indiscernible ] forthcoming, i did send you a letter from a former san

francisco art commissioner and fellow and i will read a little bit of an excerpt from her submission. i sent it by e-mail. it hasn't been done formally. the incredible significance, allegory of california, done in 1931 at the city club deserves historical status because rivera's legendary black amazon who is depicted in the literature, and in holding the riches of california as an agricultural treasure. there mural is steepled with historical figures in california at the time. she will be receiving a formal letter. it is unfortunately a lot of our major art historians are occupied, like dr. judy baca. she just got my e-mail. she could not make it for the

testimony, but i will follow up with her to submit something to records. what i want to make sure is that you understand that he got this commission because of the advocacy, not just of that, but the architect. they were good friends. and what they have done -- in his press conference, they said we are selecting rivera because he is great. he is great as an artist. [please standby for captioner switch]

>> on that motion to recommend item number two made by supervisor peskin. [roll call vote] you have 3 aye's.

>> thank you so much, that motion passes. please call the next item. >> item 3, resolution adding the commemorative new way to the block alley in recognition of activist and her dedication to and impact in san francisco on the global lgbt q community. members who wish to provide public comment should call the number on the screen, that number is 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 23947 689 2898. pressá3 the lineup to speak until thesystem will indicate you have raise your hand . >> thank you very much megan clerk and welcome supervisor mandolin, the floor is yours. >> thank you chair melgarand good afternoon colleagues .

thank you for hearing this resolution to as the clerk said at the commemorative street name to alert alley in recognition of activist sister vish-knew, cofounder of the sisters of perpetual indulgence for her impact on san francisco and the global lgbtq+ community. easter weekend 1979 sister vish-knew whose legal name is ken bunch cofounded the sisters of perpetual indulgence when she had two friends less than a block away from alert alley from her home base in san franciscointo a worldwide spiritual community service, activist and arts organization with houses and 60 us cities and 14 countries . sister vish-knew and the sisters have been fierce activist and fundraisers of millions of dollars for transgender rights, lgbtq+ youth, aid advocacy and education, prison reform,

education and the environment . sister vish-knew's many contributions to the movement include producing one of the first fundraisers for youth with hiv-aids and the first halloween in the castro in 1990 and demanded the inclusion of transgender issues and speakers for the march on washington stonewall 25th anniversary of 1993. sister vish-knew produced the first midwest gay pride conference at the university of iowa in 1974 and became the second person to apply for a same-sex marriage license in 1976 and attended thewhite knights riots in san francisco following the murder of harvey milk in 1979 . one block alley located off fourth street between 15th and 16th street has been selected for the commemorative street name for several reasons. first is very close to sister vish-knew's longtime home and as i mentioned is also a block

away from the site of the sisters first manifestation in 1979 and on the corner of alert alley and dolores street community services has operated a residential program for people living with hiv began as a hospice in 1975 and soon transitioned to a 10 unit residential care facility for formerly homeless men and women withdisabling hiv-aids . i'm requesting the committee send this item out to allow the unveiling of sister vish-knew way on easter weekend in time to celebrate the 43rd anniversary of the sisters of perpetual indulgence and i want to thank and department of public works for their work on this resolution and i want to thank roma who brought the idea of naming a street in the mission dolores neighborhood after sister vish-knew to us and for working with tom soprano in my office to draft the language and of course thanks totom for all hiswork on this and colleagues, i hope to have your support . thank you . >> thank you so much supervisor

mandelman. this is exciting. i me asa cosponsor andthank you . madame clark . >> please add me aswell, thank you . >> thank you vice chair peskin. madame clerk can we take public comment on the item? >> dbh is checking to see if there are colors in the queue. if you have not done so please press star 3 to be added . for those on hold continue to wait until thesystem indicates you have been unusually . it looks like we have nine listeners today with 3 in the queue . >> hello supervisors and happy valentine's day. this is sister roma and as rafael mentioned i am the person who came to his office with this idea and i so greatly appreciateyour support and

hearing this . this idea. i'll give you a perspective. raffaella as always was an eloquent speakerand covered all the main issues but in my perspective as a sister i've been a sister for 35 years and when i came to the border , this was the sole remaining founder active in the san francisco house. i served as president for many years and always had a very clear vision about who does the sisters are and the work that we do. compassion for the community at any of the community at large including the trans-communities long before people considered the trans-people writes our feelings. people of color, this has always been a leader in activism and social justice and i'm so proud of thefact that

when i joined the order there were just a few of us still active in san francisco and today, we have houses in 60 states on four continents . and it's incredible to me to know that there are people all over the world who are serving their community, fighting for justice and raising a lot of money for people who need it. it all started because sister vish had this crazy idea to go out in these non-habits and created a worldwide movement. so i'm going toclose it here and thank you for your support . and enjoy the rest of your day. >> thank you foryour comments . next speaker please. >> did afternoon supervisors. i am sister max time, president of the sisters of perpetual indulgence and sister roma, i am incredibly excitedabout this project . sister vish-knew has been an activist for more than half a

century and she is still involved with the community and the organization she created in sanfrancisco in 79 . she has transformed the lives of thousands of people for the better andraised millions of dollars for charity . i still believe she deserves some recognition. sister vish-knew is one of those characters that makes san francisco the city that we love so much and i strongly support this resolution and i'm proud that sister vish-knew way will be a place to celebrate diversity, inclusion and equality in san francisco . andwill inspiregenerations of social activism . thank you so much .>> thank you sisternext and that completes the queue . >> thank you so much madame clerk.

colleagues, do we have a motion to send this out witha positive recommendation ? >> so moved. >>thank you supervisor peskin. can we take will ? >> on that motion supervisor peskin. [roll call vote] you have 3 aye's. >> that motion passes. thanks for coming. madame clerk, would you please call thenext item . >> item for is the planning code to revise learning codes including among other things regulate massage establishments, eliminate the betterment of certain nonconforming massage establishment uses, prohibit personal services uses for three years at any location where a massage establishment

use was closed due to to a violation of the planning code or health code, eliminate exception for the conditional use authorization requirements and associate findings. memberswho wish to provide public comment should call the number on the screen . that is 415-655-0001 . the meeting id today is 23947 689 2898. if you have not done so and would like to speak, please press star 3 to speak and the system will indicate you have had confirmation. >> thank you madame clerk . supervisor mandelman do you want to make a remark? >> i have a few and thank you chair and colleagues thank you for your vote on the previous item. you heard this item last week and thank you for accepting amendments that jake and my staff have presented and for continuing this item today.

as a quick refresher this is legislation from the massage zoning control ordinance that supervisor ronan sponsored with supervisor preston's cosponsorship. it changes the zoning control for massage establishment and sole practitioners to make it easier for legitimate massage systems to open generally consistent with services. those changes recommend the concerns over human trafficking while important and real that signify alargely legitimate and valuable health service provided by licensed massage therapist . these concerns are more appropriate and issue within the regulatory purview of the department and the necessary law enforcement and i believe supervisor peskin pointed out the hs increased its regulatory and enforcement role with respect to massage businesses following the majorlegislative effort by former supervisor katie tang .

i can confirm not of the changes proposed or the ordinance fromdecember undo any of the health code submissions from that effort . rather this legislation is intended to relax the restricted voting control from massage establishments and in the planning code that had made the union possible for legitimate local massage businesses to reopen or relocate in san francisco and that's an industry that's been hard hit by the pandemic. the ordinance would allow for a massage establishment to be included as an accessory use commercialdistrict citywide including chiropractic or acupuncture offices . i felt it was important to proceed based on feedback we heard from a local business owner who pointed out that the original ordinance did not allow for massage services for acupuncture or physical therapist offices.

they would allowall service personal use. this ordinance recommends the health services and chiropractic and acupuncture offices should be able to staff massage therapist and offer the service to their clients . now the amendments continued decided to today, these amendments were to complete a drafting error in the original ordinance in the last couple of weeks and then entered the original ordinance to change the zoning from massage establishment to match the zoninghealth services on the ground floor permitted on the second floor and for commercials district citywide. it appears this change was not made in one district , the small scale neighborhood or in situ zoning district . the amendments would allow treatment of risk massage establishments to zoning control be consistent with their treatment and other zoning districts, making massage establishments prevented on the ground floor,

conditional on the second floor and prevented about that in making this commitment a footnote in the in situ zoning table for shared massage establishments that make these conditional in the sunset even when they are otherwise permitted and this is simply to keep the staff massage use in that area which is one of the special provisions in 2018 so again i appreciate your taking this up last week and asked that you vote this ordinance out witha positive recommendation today. veronica at the planning department and city attorney for her work on this . debra neiman with community benefits district for her awareness to this issue. candace combs with san francisco massage council for their advocacy and support as well as noe valley health service providers who led the charge today and my staff for all their work onthis . thank you. >> thank you so much supervisor mandelman. i want to associate you and

also jacob on your staff and jan well on my staff for working together on some of th clerical fixes that we noticed last week . i wanted, i don't want to hold out, this legislation is important to go through and we do have the ocean avenue vp in my district, several acupuncture and chiropractic offices that would benefit for thisand i'm excited that it's going forward . however the ocean avenue mcp does have very distinct controls on massage. because we had a history of illicit use in some of the locations on that corridor in the past. so i want to ensure that the district controls remain in place and those have beenrecent . that activity has been recent

and andthe community wanted this way . i will ask that we duplicate the filei know it's a duplication of a duplication already but i want to get that right . both offer clarifying amendments for this duplicated file because i don't want to hold up what we are voting on today. for that i like to go back to the planning department for review and the duplicated file on page 44 and like to strike out footnote number five because it's contradictory with the next footnote. this would strike out and establishment you requiring the conditional use authorization of the forum story where it is principal or accessory. and then footnote 7 to clarify that a massage accessory use is

permitted on the ocean avenue mcp if it is in the health service but not an accessory for personal service. that is substantive change and that would revert accessory massages for personal service to conditional use or just for the ocean avenue mcp. i appreciate them helping us clarify some of these issues in ourcorridor . and colleagues, do we have any further questions or comments for supervisor mandelman about what i've proposed ? with that madame clerk we will open it for public comment. >> checking to see how many colors we have in thequeue and

if you have would like to this item please press star three. the system will on the indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin . we have nine colors with one in queue. >> linda chapman and i appreciate the fact that some efforts have been made to make distinctions for example between personal services between massage by one person establishment versus one employee and also the distinctions between ones that are accessory to a tourist hotel, medical building or something like that. still unconcerned having seen what goes on in my neighborhood in the past and other neighborhoods. the fact that they're not being blatantly advertised in weekly newslettersand newspapers the way they used to be . young asian girls, beautiful young asian girls or what i see in my neighborhood, a whole

plethora of massage they call them that came in at the time when the bars and entertainments are still here. just the fact that their advertising doesn't mean they don't exist. so it's a concern that they should be permitted on the ground floorwithout conditional use as appears to be the case . to me a quick look at the changes and also that there conditional use on the second floor. why would they be conditional useon the second floor in the commercial district? those places on the second floor up to be housing like they used to be . they are to beallowed to use the vacant retail spaces on the ground floor and why should they not be conditional use on the ground floor ? foot massage which is what they call themselves can be allowed

iftheir grasp wanted . but you can't see anything beyond the glass front because everything is covered up. it's certainly not neighborhood service. do you think we need sixfoot massage places in our neighborhood , to serve our neighborhood and even other neighborhoods andwe already have all these nail salons ? >> let the next caller . >> caller: goodafternoon supervisors . i urge you given but that prohibition as has again demonstrated itself to not be functional in our city and how we seen that further prohibition as endangered all the participants in anow illicit market , has generated an opportunity for further legal activity like trafficking or violence, i urge you rather than prohibiting businesses

that you don't like in a specific area, making room for them in the city so that they congregate in this area in a functional and productive manner. you would be less likely to see them distribute up among the city so here we can see these businesses and then the process of finding their way to places that we didn't really plan for them and that we don't have the resources for them.rather than prohibiting them which prohibiting the oldest profession obviously it's not going to work . i urge you to consider making room for them and figuring out how to deal with the challenges that are there . so take the harder path but the onethat might actually work . thanks, supervisors.

>> thank you for your comments. that concludes comment for item number four. >> president: thank you so much. do we have a motionto extend the original file forward with a positive recommendation ? >> so moved. >>chair: thank yousupervisor preston . let's take the role on that . >> the motion by supervisor preston.[roll call vote] thank you madame clerk. i would like to make amotion that we amend the duplicated file according to what i read into the record . >> on that motion as stated by supervisor melgar,supervisor peskin .[roll call vote] you

have 3 aye's. >> chair: iwould like to make another motion we consider this to the call of the chair . >> motion to continue to the call of the chair. supervisor peskin .[roll call vote] you have 3 aye's. >> chair: next public comment. >> there are no colors in the queue. >> chair: thank you so much, public comment is closed. please call the next item and thank you visor mandelman. >> item 5 is an order amending

the planning code to create essential neighborhood large resident special use districts to preserve and enhance neighborhood context and affordability by among other things requiring conditional use authorization for large residential developments in the district and prohibiting new residential development or expansion of an existing residentialbuilding that would result in adwelling exceeding 4000 square feet of gross area in most circumstances and affirming appropriate findings . members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number five to call the number onthe screen . that number is415-655-0001 . the meeting id is 2497 689 2798. and thenpress pound and pound again . if you have not done so press star 3 to line up to speak . the system prompt would indicate thatyou have confirmation . >> chair: supervisor mandelman, would you like to make any opening remarks ? >> i have a few, thank you chair melgar and your

indulgence in considering a thirditem . this is an ordinance i've been working on for quite some time to address the ongoing trends in our are each zoned residential neighborhoods in district neighborhoods what dolores heights, noe valley and i am not the firstsupervisor to try to tackle this problem . supervisors leno in particular have tried to address it in different ways. the trend which if anyone is not familiar it is what i see as a seemingly constant stream of existing 12 or 1500 square foot older relatively affordable homes being and that is relative being converted into 4000 5000 or more thousand square foot luxury single-family mansions that are flipped and then sold for six or seven or more million

dollars. and these kinds of conversions as i said we see district eight every week pretty much erode the city's existing housing stock without adding any new housing and only exacerbates severe affordability crisis which i know we're all well aware. you may recall at the end of january i created an ordinance i introduced aboutthis time last year . this ordinance, this substitute response to feedback we heard from the planning commission and neighborhoodadvocates and architects and designers . the ordinance before you provides a more scaled-back and simplified approach that has the same goal which is to make it harder to convert an existing single-family home into a much larger and much less affordable one while ideally encouraging much more modestly sized units in the

same building envelope that are more accessible to middle income households then the households we talk about. specifically this ordinance would create essential neighborhood large resident special use district or su d that would cover most of district 8 including glen park, noe valley, twin peaks and eureka valley. i would note this area could be expanded by future legislation of other areas to see this issue. to the same extent we've been seeing it in these district 8 neighborhoods. it would apply to new construction and expansion projects in rh zoning districts that submitted an application after january 1 of this year except inareas already covered the corona heights large residency which extends to residential expansions . in the central neighborhoods it would be required for any

project that results in a president residential unit more than 3000 gross square feet including garage space or the equivalent of a 1.2 to 1.1 area if ar whichever is less. for example on a 2000 square foot lot the cu triggered if any unit extent exceeded 2400 square feet . which is most neighborhoods and residential would be 3000 square feet perunit . that said the suv would prohibit approval of any project asked exceeding 4000 square feet. property owners would be entitled to seek a variance for a specific hardship that could be demonstrated as is constitutionallyrequired . still in all cases and 15 percent increase in floor area would always be permitted and measured cumulatively overthe prior 10 years so there's the ability to expand your kitchen . this tenure look back would be permitted after january 1, 2022

so that homeowners are expanding before these new requirements came into effect. i do have some non-substantive amendments that i hope you will make today. that relates to the planning commissions version of this ordinance and which would apply citywide. because of this the board would have to make certain required findings that submissions would otherwise have made. consequently a super majority will be required to approve the ordinance if you go back to the full board. specifically my office has circulated these amendments to incorporate thefindings that this ordinance is consistent with the general plan and planning code and that it serves the public necessity convenience and welfare . these and other city attorney's office and i would respectfully ask you move to adopt it today. inside the commission also

conveyed a number of recommendations including scaling it back to district neighborhoods especially the neighborhoods i mentioned and exploring higher square footage is an expansion as well as fdr-based control. all these recommendations are incorporated before you today the commission has waived its option to rehear the item. with that i want to thank planning department staff and supervisor alone he who's joining us today as well as the district neighborhood leaders and designers and architects for helping shape this ordinance as well as deputy city attorney jessen on my staff who has been working on this for more thana year. and i look forward to discussing it with you today and asking you recommend these commitments to the full board . and i thank you . >>thank you so much supervisor mandelman. i see audrey here . ifyou're on the roster did you want to speak ?

>> thank you supervisor. if i can get this full commission report .thank you. it sounds like he has covered the report so i don't think i'll see it covered but supervisor mandelman's office and the planning department have been working for a while on this ordinance and the planning commission considered version 1 of the ordinance at their july 22,2021 hearing . during that hearing 28 members of the public spoke in opposition to the ordinance and the seven members of the public spoke in support. after taking public comment the commissioners had a lengthy discussion which concluded with continuing theitem and requesting the sponsor and department further find the ordinance by identifying the problem and developing specific tools to solve the identified issue . so after spending several weeks working with the supervisors

that apartment worked to refine the ordinance and bring it back to the planning commission with several new recommended modifications . those modifications were presented to the commission after regularlyscheduled hearing september 23. during public comment 16 people voted against the ordinance . no onespoke in favor. the commissioners had a robust discussion and proposed modifications . they did ultimately recommend approval of the ordinance so as supervisor mandelman stated they passed along comments they hope the supervisor and board of supervisors would incorporate. they asked for more extensive outreach to thearea that would be affected . reducing the affected area on noe valley and considering something smaller than 1000 square feet, making the date of the legislation a date for products to be grandfathered and examining the

appropriateness of the maximum gross area allowed. strengthening tenant protections, raising the minimum ties before conditional use is required andgenerally taking a carrot versus stick approach for encouraging density . again as supervisormandelman stated , the ordinance was reintroduced on january 25 with some of thecommission's recommendations incorporated . the commission was briefed on those changes and waived their optionto provide a new recommendation on that version . that is all for the planning departmentand i'm here to answer any questions . >> thank you so much. i actually do have a question for you. so in my previous life on the planning commission, this idea of florida area ratios and residential buildings came up

along on a host of issues. demolition controls, so i'm wondering how you think this marks a shift and how did the commissioners talk about that issue specifically. >> that's a great question supervisor melgar. i wish i could say we had a discussion in which everyone agreed on what the appropriate size for a dwelling unitis . the commissioners did not come to a consensus on what that size is . i think the agreement came more that size needs to be scalable in context and many but not all of ourcommissioners were more supportive of an sar approach . that would scale with the existing context of both the building and neighborhood which

is why we are grateful supervisor mandelman had offered 2 options. other items one with 2 fdr triggers for the 2000 square feet. the commission is much happier with the 3000 square foot trigger versus the original especially based on the fact that the average unit size in san francisco is at about 3000 square feet based in an actual reality. >> you mean the average of new averages? >> it's not my house. thank you. and that's really interesting. i think that what you just said about context is figuring it out with f.a.r., it's more about the project than the number. so thank you so much and i want to say thank you supervisor mandelman for your hard work on this. and also for your willingness

to put it through as a smaller, and i know in district 7 we are constantly thinking about these things and for us, it's a different district of course than what you're trying to deal with but for us, we do see quite a lot of neighbors who want to do intergenerational living particularly for chinese families that have two sets of in-laws. we want to make sure that we are able to accommodate all families in san francisco. we haven't found it but i do thank you so much for your willingness to be flexible about your approach. so with that do we have any other comments orquestions for either supervisor mandelman ? okay. with that, madam clerk public

comment. >> dbh checking to see how many colors we have in the queue. if you've not done so and would like to this item please bless á3 to be added and for those on hold please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. you have five in the queue and the first color please. >> caller: i have a house in noe valley and i amcalling in support of this measure . there's a lack of light rail happening and somebody on the other side have of me as a considerable decrease in light and someone on the other side who wants to supersize their house to 5500 square feet, possibly more and i just feel like the neighborhood is changing into something that it

was never meant to be so i appreciate your support. >> thank you for your comments, nextspeaker please . >> evening supervisors. many thanks to supervisor mandelman for putting forth this ordinance . we in noe valley are ground zero [bleep] monster homes . that needs some sort of control on out of scale homes that are nothingbut a menace to the planet when you're thinking about ecological impact .who is achieving 4000, 5000 square foot homes for a family of two, a family of maybe two and one child? unless you count the pets where our average size is no more

than 2.1 and i don't know what that point stands for but our family size has shrunk but then the size of homes has been supersized for no good reason other than showing the opulence of and luxury that is affordable. our problem is affordable housing.our problem is providing more affordable housing for the middle and lower income san franciscans and this is not theanswer . i and my fellow activists are in support of this ordinance and we're thankful that supervisor mandelman has come up with that. i'm just having that the machinations from planning and staff , the sar limits are not going to be higher than what w have because it's counter to what ms. malone indicated . our experience because we do get those notices for 311 pre-application. the average unit size including the ones that are being built

in units, multiunit are not 3000 square feet. i don't know supervisors have come up with this but i appreciate it if the study could be available to the public and particularly ... >> let's take thenext color please .>> my name is bill holtzman, i'm president of corporate heights neighbors better known as chn. we represent 1000 households which are directly northwest of the castro. we've been around for 18 years and focused on monster homes. the special use district was signedinto law on july 21, 2017 following two years of interim controls . it was supported by two different age supervisors and oneunanimous approval from the board and the mayor . the second years of experience

we are the ultimate petri dish when it comes to combating monster homes. we now received advance notice for any development that is greater than 3000 square feet and or if that involvement offers less than 45 percent rear yard coverage so this passage a number of c.u. have been triggered and we've utilized these critical tools and the vast majority of cases the suv helped produce negotiated compromise where the neighborhood and the developer run away with not exactly what they want but close to what they want . in looking at the proposed ordinancefor you i suggest 2 enhancements . explicitly spelling out the five percent back yard coverage and require a variance if this is exceeded. thank you very much for your time. >> next speaker please. >> i live on liberty street in

the dolores heights area and i thank you much supervisor for bringing this up. i've been living here for over 23 years and i've seen both the character of this neighborhood if all and change in these huge crazy size homes built upand i know my ceos and founders are some of the most wealthy companies in the world . i am also in favor of this ordinance which would bring to attention any of these changes that are so out of line of what the city has been for over a couple of hundred years and i believe not only in increasing affordability if there such a thing anymore in san francisco for houses but also just to for san francisco to still be san

francisco and having these gradual changes as outlined by people going forward thank you so much >> let's take the next color. if you'd like to thisitem we are on item number five . otherwise we will take the last color in the queue . >> caller: that afternoon. i want to highlight the need for this suv and link with the issue of the demo. 40 projects in noe valley alone have been flipped for a price increase of 3.9 million in the past decade by misusing the section 317 them and they become negative mansions over 3000 square feet and even more throughout the proposed suv and some were originally 2 units. noe valley as an epicenter for demolition according to the planning staff. in 2015 reviewing a sample of five noe valley projects the staff concerned 40 percent should have been reviewed as demolition under the existing

them. since december 2017 when the ret was rescinded the planning commission could have stopped alterations from becoming high-priced super large single-family homes by adjusting thedemolition calculations as they are empowered to do . as told residents in march 2009 would return within the year to adjust them. it never happened. please remember the points for demolition planning: was to allow reasonable expansion preventing demolitions. as it said in section 317 findings the general plan recognizes the existing housing is the greatest residential units is a resource inneed of protection . i urge this committee to please put forward supervisor mandelman's legislation to the full board and most importantly i urge the committee to take board member 200451 and some

helpfulinto this proposed ordinance . this was passed unanimously and we continue to callthe chair on may 4, 2020 . these call now and add it to the suv and thank you much and happy valentine's day. >> let's take the next color please. >> good afternoon chair melgar and members of the transportation committee . i'm chair of the dolores heights improvement club in district 8. we strongly support this legislation. it sets reasonable limits for the size of family houses while allowing for more square footage ofthe project has more than one unit . my neighbor on liberty street during the past seven years at 12:00 neighborhood has had 50 significant home demolitionsfor renovations . 20 of these projects were more

than 4000 square feet on our standard 2514 lot and five were in excess of 5000 square feet. these projects are big and out of character with the neighborhood. done because project sponsors with the pockets increase their profits by building the maximum square footage allowed and not families thathave saved enough to report a modified home in san francisco . these large projects have significant impacts with larger excavations and foundations. their dump trucks, cementtrucks up and down our street constantly . on my street my eight year of constant construction that will continue for another 4 and 5 years based on entitled projects .that's how these projects come . and for what? a home gym? media room? a home office?

[inaudible] how do these homes benefit our neighborhood and our city? association has brought to the planning commission on the most egregious projects.however these systemic practices shouldn't and can't be fought on a case-by-case basis. they call for a change in policy. please supportthis legislation and vote to move it to the full board .>> that concludes the queue for this item. >> thank you so much madame clerk. with that public comment is now closed. supervisor mandelman i would like to make a motion that we amend legislation according to the record provided to us. thank you. madame clerk, let's take a roll call on that.

>> on that motion, supervisor peskin. [roll call vote] >> those are non-substantive amendments, correct? we can goahead and vote on the amended legislation and send it out with a recommendation i'll just make that motion, thank you. madame clerk . >> on the motion to recommend as amended, supervisor peskin. >>. [roll call vote] you have 3 aye's. >> chair: that motion passes unanimously. iq supervisor mandelman. >> thank youcolleagues . >> i'm so surprised that we're

doingsuch a great time we are going to getout in time for valentine's day , i think . please call the next item . >> item number six is an ordinance amending the administrative code evicting residential tenants for nonpayment of rent on or after april 1, 2022 and due to the pandemic and will prohibit landlords from imposing penalties or similar charges on such tenants. members would like to make public comment on this item should call the number on the screen. again, that number today is 415-655-0001. the meeting i.e.is 2497 689 2798. then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so press á3 lineup to speakat the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand . >> thank you so much madame clerk. supervisor preston has always thank you so muchfor your

leadership on all these issues . the floor is yours. >> thank you chair melgar and apologies committee members . supervisors and everyone that we have stacked with so many different pieces of legislation but it's the state's fault, not ours. the city as i said before acted very swiftly to stop his actions at the outset of the pandemic. it was first done by the mayor for executive order back in march 2020 followed by the board of supervisors passed an ordinance in june 2020 which made rent payers caused by covid-19 not a victim. the time from the governor's march 2020 executive order and its subsequent extensions which lasted until september 2020.

in august 2020, california passed 80 88 which created more limited statewide election protections and unfortunately the state law also targeted san francisco and preempted it cities like ours from passing additional more protective measures for related nonpayment arrests. in effect the state intervened to stop san francisco in particular and other cities from deterring determining the best way to keep people in their homes during a pandemic. the statewide protections were extended first by sc 91 and later by 8832. the election protections made a 32 expired in october 2021 but the provisions that prevent the infection for pending

application for rental assistance as well as the provisions that preempt local governments from enacting their own nonpayment election protection all of them remain in effect until april 1 2022. so colleagues, the statewide protections circumventing but obviously the hardships are not in the emergency remains. san francisco has more than 11,000 pending applications for rent relief with more than $182 million in requested funds that have not been paid according to the california rent relief program dashboard. the ordinance before the committee today seeks to reinstate permanent infection protection for tenants unable to pay rent during the state of emergency like the previous ordinance that covered the rent again before thestate intervened , the april to

september 2020 rent which incidentally i should mention is a landlord lobby challenge in the court and which was upheld by law in san francisco's court against the legal challenge. this proposal permanently takes nonpayment conviction across the table where the or the inability to payarose out of a substantial decrease in household income or substantial out-of-pocket expenses . half by the pandemic or by any local state or federal governmentresponse and is documented . again, those provisions are verbatim as what we passed in 2020. the rentals covered by this ordinance importantly our starting on april 1, 2022 so this ordinance deals with the rent that will begin to become

due for the rental period starting april. and under the ordinance and will run through the end of the mayor's proclamation of emergency related to the covid-19 pandemic so as long as conditions warrant a state of emergency peoplefacing hardship should not lose their homes . that's the fundamental premise of this law. in addition to the legislation and again just like our 20/20 legislation identically prohibits late fees, penalties, interest or other charges to tenants related to the delays and also modifies the habitual late payment of rent and election rules to make clear that delay rent and delay itself can be used as grounds for eviction. i want to be clear the legislation does not cancel the rent that accrues during the state of emergency. instead the obligation really becomes a kin to consumer debt if they're not promptly pay and

remain enforceable but the legislation does establish and will establish that the rent debt is not grounds for eviction. notnow, and not ever .i want to thank the coalition for working with myoffice . my chief of staff kyle and my early cosponsors supervisor chan, peskin, ronen and walton and lastlymadame chair , we know there are conversations happening on the state federal regarding potential steps to prevent elections. we don't know where those conversationswill land and we can't wait until they land . they always aim to land right. we're also looking forward to more clarity on the type of emergency so knowing the grounds i would like to

duplicate the file and leave open the option to revisit this ordinance and consider amendments as needed without restarting the clock in the future so with that i'd like to ask the city to send the original file to the board with a positive recommendation as report and thank you madame chair for recalibrating this specifically for your willingness to submit the report and on the duplicative file i like to continue that to the call of the chair. >> thank you so much supervisor preston and three please add me as a cosponsor of theoriginal file . do we have any questions or comments for improviser preston?madame clerk,let's go to public comment on this item . >> dbh i'm checking to see how many colors we have and you.

if you've not done so already press á3 to be added. the system will indicate you have raised your hand so for thosealready on hold we continue to wait and the system will indicate you have been commuted and then you may begin your comments. the system has 10 listeners with five in the queue. let's take the first color please . >> hello officials, i urge the board not to continue raising the moratorium. it is a health and safety risk especially for allsmall business owners . we are people . we have bills to pay. but we have done our part in the moratorium. as for myself i have a school nurse and iworked two full-time jobs seven days a week .i work weekdays and nights, 12 hour shifts. at home and lately just this payment upstairs cost a lot that made me leslie and i'm

communal compromise. i have covid-19 because of the delivery guys that shared on my front porch. i don't go out and i work from home. i don't congregate in large crowds. this nonpayment did not submit anyapplication . only to illegally settle his children who apply. and housing is the key. to be fair, the resolution officials and supervisor preston, please tell us what is just cause for eviction? i know money is a cause. what can we do? i've been in so much pain and my house is very much in jeopardy. this causes me pain and we've

been working so hard just to paybills. for this property . you have bigger problems. i know it is outof town homeless people . and they go to county assistance programs. to get money. >>. [please stand by]

>> we need our money. we are also -- let me. [indiscernable] >> is that caller still unmuted? let's move back. that caller had a minute and 47

seconds left. next caller. then we will move back. we lost that one. >> good afternoon. this is a tenant unit member. it is unfortunate the state program has lagged not paid out what the dew to the tenants to give to the landlords. that is a big problem. that affects the land lords and the tenants. tenants need a roof over their head. we are still in the covid-19 pandemic. the eviction protections will expire on march 31st, it makes perfect sense that we continue the protections for tenants from april to the end of the pandemic

is declared. please forward this with a positive recommendation to the full board. thank you. >> next caller. if you would like to speak, press star 3. otherwise we will take the last three in the queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is theresa flanders, north beach tenants committee. i am calling in support. we need this. i have talked with so many tenants whose landlords had not been willing to submit ledgers or information. much has been delayed for so much. the anxiety during this particular period of time has only grown, especially for tenants and those landlords waiting also to get that money. in support of both landlords and

tenants with rent relief, we need these tenant protections in place. it is reality, the way things are right now. thank you, supervisor preston, for helping all of us. thank you so much. >> next caller in the queue. good afternoon, i am an organizer in san francisco. i am here to support the reinstatement of eviction moratorium. we are in the pandemic. we are out of jobs. a huge amount of debt. displacement in san francisco. we need this protection in place. i am urging you to support it to protect the community of san

francisco. thank you. >> next speaker, please. this is the last caller in the queue. if you would like to speak, press star 3. >> hi, i work at the coalition, specifically on the covid-19 debt relief program. there are over 10,000 applications for san francisco county not processed, a lot of which were submitted last year. i empathies with the landlords. it is on the state to make this rent relief program more accessible until those thousands of applications can be processed. we need to extend protection for the thousands of tenants. thank you. >> last caller.

>> i am amanda. i am a small landlord and also an attorney. my experience has been that my tenants have been abusing this. they did not have a covid related loss of their jobs. they are still using this. they have completely stopped communicating with us at all because they are hiding behind this legislation. we are not able to get relief which they would be denied. it is troublesome how the legislation has been stacked up against property holders. i would argue it constitutes constitutional taking. no due process for people like us effectively denied use of or

control over our property. that is discouraging as a citizen of san francisco because it feels like we are completely being blindsighted. >> thank you so much for your comments. the caller that dropped up did hang up from the call. that completes the queue. >> thank you. supervisor preston did you want to address anything in public comment? >> i would add as general comment. i do think the approach on payment eviction for nonpayment situations there has been considerable balance and really unprecedented response by the federal, state and local governments. they generated a massive amount of funds in an effort to make

sure that landlords are not losing rental income. regardless of the wisdom of that. it is its own policy discussion. the reality is if everyone is frustrated landlords and ten benants to -- tenants we have the money from the federal government and people are significantly delayed. i don't think that serves anyone's interest. it is unfortunate. this board has taken action. set aside considerable funds for rent relief as well in the event those claims are denied at the state level. the additional tens of millions of dollars are available here. i think that that balance is struck. people should not lose homes if

covid made them unable to pay their rent. it is not a covid situation that this doesn't apply to. if there is hardship due to the pandemic or to the government response and closures of businesses and that kind of thing and folks would be protected. the debt remains as well as access to the rent relief. i am proud of our efforts of a city to come together to say whatever the resolution of the underlying debts here that they shouldn't be grounds to for eviction. most of the frustration has much more to do with the inexcusably slow system at the state level. as much as the speed submitting

forms for one program then asked for the next one and submit this form. we know these programs work best when they are seamless to root out fraud without hurdles for people. i believe in most situations that i have heard about where folks are having a hard time because of this it is because of that bureaucracy, not working as well as it should. i would say we should all be directing that frustration by the state programs not turning around the applications more quickly. working as we are in conversations with the mayor's office of community development. do we need to take it back in this program was originally local. we thought the state would be better positioned to process

claims. the move back up to the state and i think we should take a hard look if we need to pull this back from the city if the state can't turn the checks around for everyone's benefit. i stated a motion earlier. i appreciate you cosponsoring. as i said before send be the original file to the full board with positive recommendation and continue the duplicative file to the call of the chair. >> thank you. madam clerk. public comment is closed. we will take roll on the two motions supervisor peskin just stated. >> first motion to recommend original file as committee report. supervisor peskin.

>> aye. >> speaker preston. >> aye. >> speaker melgar. >> aye. i have three ayes. on the second motion which was duplicated. the motion to continue the duplicate to the call of chair supervisor preston. >> aye. >> peskin. or re. supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you so much. that motion passes. congratulations, supervisor preston. do we have any other items on the agenda? >> no further business for today. >> great. we are adjourned. happy valentine's day everyone. >> happy valentine's day. .

>> reporting progress. >>. >> chair: thank you everyone. regular meeting of the board of education of the san francisco unified schoo