process, and comes to the board. so just in december, we had an opportunity to review the policy, and we are operating under that policy now. >> but we can bring it back as a separate discussion. you probably need to call for public comment. >> well no, i was actually going to go back and say the same thing that she just said. we did all review this in december and we all agreed to come back with this type of recommendation. i would move that we move to adopt staff's recommendation for this r.f.p. process because it it's an item that we already discussed and approved, what staff presented a couple months ago. >> there's a motion and second made about the r.f.p. or what? >> yes. [inaudible] >> public comment? >> the only thing i'll say, commissioner, is i'm supportive of your comments on this. >> thank you. everybody understanding their ro roll -- roles is the key to decision quality. so yes, we'll issue the r.f.p. public comment? call the question. those in favor, say aye. opposed? next. >> item number 12, discussion

that the board finds that it is in our best interest of the public that the board elect not to disclose this closed session deliberations? a motion made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor safai. >> for the record we will show that supervisor haney is not in the chamber >> okay. then without objection, we will not disclose our closed session deliberations. i will hand this over to you for p.u.c.'s action. >> commissioners, can i have a motion on whether to disclose. a motion by commissioner maxwell not to disclose s

press from not only members of the board of supervisors but members of the public. i do think it's important that although the comments and the suggestions and the things that you are all working on are, of course, welcomed, i want to be clear that when we make a commitment to the public, that we need to be able to deliver. it's not responsible for us to say that something is going to happen and then we realize we can't make it happen. it's why i've worked with the city attorney's office, why i've worked with our city departments to flush out what is possible for us to do on a local level. in fact many of you know i was in sacramento yesterday with the governor and other big-city mayors to talk about what government officials can do to assist us with things that we know are not just impacting our city, but our state and our entire country. so we cannot just work here in san francisco to address this. we will need help, we will need to work together, and i hope that we will be able to do that. thank you so much all for extend

the board -- sorry. under the proposed mou the board will maintain ultimate authority over downtown extension project. they may accept or reject the recommendations of the steering committee. they may also act in absence of the recommendation of the efc. the steering committee will be supported by an integrated program management team comprised of senior staff of the agencies to this agreement. in agreement the program management team would be led by the project director from the authority and be responsible for overseeing the day-to-day work program. the project director would be an employee. the m.o.u. provides the flexibility of hiring a consultant or second employee from another agency. this slide shows an illustration how the new organizational structure under the m.o.u. fits into the current organizational structure. on the right side is the operational organizational chart at the high level. on the left side is the phase two downtown extension organizational is that right or structure ase envisione

we will provide the full report to the board as part of the april 7th board packet. ou will be able to see not only these recommendations but the supporting materials. the secretarthe equity strategyf a 2014 board policy. it was then built upon by not only be staff but both social justice and affordable housing that helped us shape the program. it is neighborhood based. the reason for that is that the transit needs in chinatown are different than in the bayview, and it allows us to develop tailored solutions. it is also very targeted and incremental. if i had all of the money in the world, how would i solve transit equity. it is more using data and community feedback to make in cremental improvements and to monitor those to make sure what we expected to happen is actually happening. we are presents at this time of year because it is set up to specifically inform the budget process. as you make decisions, the need to improve transit equity are front and center in the budget process. that is reflected in the value statement jonathan shared. there is both quantitative an

the board appreciates -- [no audio] >> and we will begin the meeting. we will start with the roll call. [roll call] >> we have a quorum. item number 3, communications. >> item number 3, communications. due to the covid-19 and to protect the public, the meeting room is closed. however members will be participating in the meeting remotely to the same extent as if they were remotely present. this meeting is being televised by sfgovtv. please note that there is a 20-to-30-second time lag between what you are hearing and the meeting. for those who want to make public comment or listen on the listen line, the number is 888-363-4734, and the access code is 2241350. please make sure you are in a quiet location, turnoff any t.v. or radios, and if you are listening to sfgovtv, you mute the sound. at the appropriate -- [inaudible] >> you will be queued up in the order in which you press one-zero. there will be an automated voice that will tell you when it's time to speak. i will start your two minutes when you begin talking. i will say "30 seconds" when you have 3

any questions from the board? and mr. holt, please extend our thanks to the members that are opting out because of their service. >> clerk: okay. next item. this is the time for public comment. i this is the time to address members of the public -- i see mr. patrick. >> i'd like to address the members of the board. this came out of the transportation authority of san francisco and has effectively delayed this project two years. out of this delay, we've studied the project, and we've said we're going to put a new management structure between this board and the operations. that matter's been structured who we composed of substantially the same people who sit on this board, or maybe one level down. this is a quid pro quo. the quid is we have to change the management structure. the quo is we'll then give you the money. i don't know about you, but i find that objectionable. we've essentially delayed the project two years. now as i look at this next thing, what will flow out of that, in my opinion, is a tremendous amount of mone

any questions from the board? and mr. holt, please extend our thanks to the members that are opting out because of their service. >> clerk: okay. next item. this is the time for public comment. i this is the time to address members of the public -- i see mr. patrick. >> i'd like to address the members of the board. this came out of the transportation authority of san francisco and has effectively delayed this project two years. out of this delay, we've studied the project, and we've said we're going to put a new management structure between this board and the operations. that matter's been structured who we composed of substantially the same people who sit on this board, or maybe one level down. this is a quid pro quo. the quid is we have to change the management structure. the quo is we'll then give you the money. i don't know about you, but i find that objectionable. we've essentially delayed the project two years. now as i look at this next thing, what will flow out of that, in my opinion, is a tremendous amount of mone

due to covid-19, the board of supervisors committee and legislative chambers are closed at this time. members will be participating remotely. a committee members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. both channel 26 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the call-in number up near the top of your screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by call 888-204-5984. that phone number again is 888-204-5984. there is an access code. the access code is 3501008. again, the access code for public comment is 3501008. once you're connected, wait until public comment is opened on an agenda item and dial 1, then 0 to be added to the queue to speak. call from a quiet location. speak slowly and clearly and turn down your television, radio, or streaming devices. alternatively, you may submit comments in the following ways: comment to myself, john.ca

we will provide the full report to the board as part of the april 7th board packet. ou will be able to see not only these recommendations but the supporting materials. the secretarthe equity strategyf a 2014 board policy. it was then built upon by not only be staff but both social justice and affordable housing that helped us shape the program. it is neighborhood based. the reason for that is that the transit needs in chinatown are different than in the bayview, and it allows us to develop tailored solutions. it is also very targeted and incremental. if i had all of the money in the world, how would i solve transit equity. it is more using data and community feedback to make in cremental improvements and to monitor those to make sure what we expected to happen is actually happening. we are presents at this time of year because it is set up to specifically inform the budget process. as you make decisions, the need to improve transit equity are front and center in the budget process. that is reflected in the value statement jonathan shared. there is both quantitative an

what we can do is give the board a little more transparency on that. we can give you quality updates. the c.i.p., i always tell people this, this is a picture of a moment. the board approved the c.i.p. and does mass changes, you know, multiple hundreds of projects. so we essentially add the last two years in any c.i.p. cycle, so we're adding to the back end. we are constantly funding projects, moving projects, removing projects. this is the first time the board has asked for this much detail on the five-year c.i.p., but if you would like a report on that, we can happily track that. >> okay. thank you. and then, my last question is sort of looking at slide 22, where you layout in kind of the fourth column over, you layout the five-year plan and how that contrasts with the proposed c.i.p. so i'm wondering if you could just remind us, how are we defining needs there? have we -- i have to ask the question, i'm sure the answer's yes. but are we looking at the most comfortable version of this plan, and is that something that aligns with our states goals aroun

and certainly, staff is prepared, if the board wants to direct us to pursue either one. the other option is, again, for a temporary fix f, for 180 days -- >> where is the record keeper? >> they're on the line. >> this is supervisor safai. i have a question? >> yes? >> they wei'm looking at the n here. was it as simple as doubling the existing numbers here or was there consideration why we would be asking for or limiting it up to $100,000? >> we've not taken any action on this. >> no, i understand. i'm looking at the recommendation. i see that. i know we haven't taken any action. i'm just looking at what's recommended? >> yes. as we pointed out in the presentation, it can be up to $100,000. if you wanted to go from $50,000 to $75,000, that would be acceptable. staff has not taken any action except on the measure of this emergency temporary increase for loans, up to 100% or $100,000, and that's in combination with any other loans that they might be taken, the 1 $100,000 limit, if they have a $50,000 loan outstanding, they would be able to access an additional $50,000. >> ok

let's formalize the discussion and present it to the board for feedback and show the public and board of supervisors that we do intend to approach this thoughtfully and creatively. and that we have an incredible opportunity here. to echo director eaken, let's hear from the public about how they're going to feel getting back on public transportation. what other modes could they use if those modes were safe and welcoming? could a lot more people bike? yes, we know a lot more people could and would bike in the city if we had those safe corridors that connected us. would a lot more people walk if the traffic were as reduced as it has been the past five weeks? it's been amazing to walk for essential trips and to have so few negative car interaction. although this is a dislocating time and been so hard on so many people and continues to be hard, i feel optimistic that we're going to take this opportunity and come out with a better transportation system for san francisco and a safer one, and one that works for all the modes that people want to use. >> very good. vice chair borden. >> i want

>> this is the san francisco board of appeals. president and lazarus will be joined by honda, and santacana. also present is the deputy city attorney who will provide legal advice this evening. at the controls is the board's legal process clerk and i am julie, the board's executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city departments with cases before the board this evening. we have the administrator planning the planning commission and joseph duffy, senior building inspector. the board meeting guidelines are follows. the boards turnoff and silence electronic devices. appellants and department respondents have 7 minutes to present the case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated must include the comments within this period. members of the public not affiliated with the parties have three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please e-mail the board staff at board of appeals at sfgovtv. this is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78 and wi

in light of the public comment and very compelling public comment, but i feel that as a member of the board, of this agency, we have an obligation to ensure the financial sustainability of our transportation system and i want transportation dependent folks like myself to have a system that we can rely on in the future. so that is one of the reasons i support our fare indexing policy in general and i hope that we can look to more smooth times ahead where we can rely on those that provide transparency and predictability for our riders, as well. so i just want to say thank you and i think this budget balance is a tough choice that we all need to make and i'm in full support. that's all i have. thank you. >> thank you. director brinkman. >> thank you. jonathan, leo, thank you both so much and all of your staff, the work has been amazing, from the very first discussions about budget at the board workshop, we've been able to go in depth into this and you've taken all of the feedback and you've come back with what i think is a good compromise and intend to support this. i just want to note that wh

the board jurisdiction. refrain from using names. if you have a complaint an employee submit it to the supervisor. board rules in california law do not allow us to attempt to answer questions during public comment. the superintendent will ask the staff to follow up. with that mr. steel. you will all get two minutes. >> one quick question. once again could we explain that processor how people can get access? >> i am spanish english interpreter. >> you want to offer your services for translation? >> then we have somebody from cantonese? >> yes. [speaking cantonese jesu canton. ]. >> this is for items not on the agenda. not about grading system or sheltering homeless. >> thank you for the reminder. raise your hand if you would like to speak in general public comment and i will call on you. >> go ahead. you have two minutes. >> thank you. i would like to continue about kalw. thank you for what you are doing. the food thing and the fabulous food that is being served. it was a kalw announcer who noted the school di

that the board finds that it is in our best interest of the public that the board elect not to disclose this closed session deliberations? a motion made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor safai. >> for the record we will show that supervisor haney is not in the chamber >> okay. then without objection, we will not disclose our closed session deliberations. i will hand this over to you for p.u.c.'s action. >> commissioners, can i have a motion on whether to disclose. a motion by commissioner maxwell not to disclose seconded by commissioner paulson. without objection, that is the order. >> mr. president, i would like to note for the record that the p.u.c. commissioners caen and vietor are not in chamber >> okay. colleagues that brings us to the end of our joint special meeting agenda. madame clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> that concludes our business for today, mr. president >> thank you. we are adjourned. [please stand by] better. san francisco department of environment is a place where climate hits the street. we know that we don't have all the answers.

we acted on the board's permit in good faith. we brought the building back to a structurally sound condition. the only thing waiting to be done is to pour the slab. that is because we have not been able to put the underground plumbing in. the senior inspector was out at the property and met with mr. drater and mr. greinetz and confirmed the building was in a sound structural condition. >> thanks. thank you commissioners. i want to bring up the comments the president and commissioner made that really well book ends this long torture case which is, first, commissioner swig. yes, this entire project started with a wrong. no one is dancing around that fact. that bay came down wrongly. we didn't dance around it at the planning commission hearing. the commission adjudicated it. it was what you suggested in the 2017 board hearing that the bay should be rebuilt. this issue has been very clearly considered the wrong and this is the resolution. mr. sanchez confirmed the discussion while extensive whent the bay it was a quick response from c

we acted on the board's permit in good faith. we brought the building back to a structurally sound condition. the only thing waiting to be done is to pour the slab. that is because we have not been able to put the underground plumbing in. the senior inspector was out at the property and met with mr. drater and mr. greinetz and confirmed the building was in a sound structural condition. >> thanks. thank you commissioners. i want to bring up the comments the president and commissioner made that really well book ends this long torture case which is, first, commissioner swig. yes, this entire project started with a wrong. no one is dancing around that fact. that bay came down wrongly. we didn't dance around it at the planning commission hearing. the commission adjudicated it. it was what you suggested in the 2017 board hearing that the bay should be rebuilt. this issue has been very clearly considered the wrong and this is the resolution. mr. sanchez confirmed the discussion while extensive whent the bay it was a quick response from c

i have a few requests for the school board. one, i would the school board to voice support for the schools and this could be in the form of a resolution for this initiative. three, as a service i would like to in a member of the usd classrooms as we can and starting with the elementary schools. thank you for considering my offer. it would be my pleasure to combine my love of chess with helping students in my hometown. the report was from the agenda this evening so i'm reading a statement from the pack members and in addition i'm making the announcement the pack meeting scheduled for tomorrow night is canceled. pack members wanted to be present to make this statement but with the report removed from the agenda and no childcare provided it was not reasonable for them to attend. we, the members of the parent advisory council, support the voices of parents, students and staff in requesting that there be no cuts or layoffs that will negatively impact the experience of our students in the classrooms and at school sites. we support mak

what we can do is give the board a little more transparency on that. we can give you quality updates. the c.i.p., i always tell people this, this is a picture of a moment. the board approved the c.i.p. and does mass changes, you know, multiple hundreds of projects. so we essentially add the last two years in any c.i.p. cycle, so we're adding to the back end. we are constantly funding projects, moving projects, removing projects. this is the first time the board has asked for this much detail on the five-year c.i.p., but if you would like a report on that, we can happily track that. >> okay. thank you. and then, my last question is sort of looking at slide 22, where you layout in kind of the fourth column over, you layout the five-year plan and how that contrasts with the proposed c.i.p. so i'm wondering if you could just remind us, how are we defining needs there? have we -- i have to ask the question, i'm sure the answer's yes. but are we looking at the most comfortable version of this plan, and is that something that aligns with our states goals aroun

due to the covid-19 healthy emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public, the board of supervisors litingive chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotedly as in the same extent as if they were physically comment. -- physically present. we are streaming numbers across the screen. each sp

are we reconvening as the board of supervisors? madam clerk, let's now go our adoption without committee reference. >> mr. president, i believe it's time for public comment, general public comment before we take those items. >> correct. >> at this time, the public may contribute live comments for up to two minutes by dialing the following telephone number and this is streaming across channel 26 is i believe on the live feed for the computer, if you're watching this meeting from your computer. (888)204-5984 and that's (888)204-5984 and when prompted, please enter the access code which is 350-1008 and that's 350-1008. and when you are connected, you will receive another prompt which is to dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue to speak and make sure you're calling from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. if you would rather submit your written comment, we're happy to take that, as well. you can submit an email to board.of.supervisors@sfgov.org. or you can just send something in the po

the board will review the canvas of the election prepared by the board of elections and consider a resolution declaring the results on the election and other remaining formation proceedings. madam clerk, let's go to our committee reports. item number 22. >> clerk: item 22 is an emergency ordinance which was considered by the budget and finance committee at a regular meeting on monday, april 13, and was forwarded as a committee report. it's an emergency ordinance to require the city to limit covid-19 impacts by securing rooms through service agreements with hotels and motels for use as temporary quarantine use. this item suspends charter section 9.118, the process to obtain service agreements for private rooms. this item requires daily reporting to the board of supervisors and requires congregate care facilities for the homeless to comply with social distancing practices and screening protocols. this item, pursuant to charter section 2.107, that charter section authorizes emergency ordinances to secure final passage with only one reading with the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the entire bo

the board will review the canvas of the election prepared by the board of elections and consider a resolution declaring the results on the election and other remaining formation proceedings. madam clerk, let's go to our committee reports. item number 22. >> clerk: item 22 is an emergency ordinance which was considered by the budget and finance committee at a regular meeting on monday, april 13, and was forwarded as a committee report. it's an emergency ordinance to require the city to limit covid-19 impacts by securing rooms through service agreements with hotels and motels for use as temporary quarantine use. this item suspends charter section 9.118, the process to obtain service agreements for private rooms. this item requires daily reporting to the board of supervisors and requires congregate care facilities for the homeless to comply with social distancing practices and screening protocols. this item, pursuant to charter section 2.107, that charter section authorizes emergency ordinances to secure final passage with only one reading with the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the entire bo

the revised budget would go the board's budget and be part of the overall process under the board of supervisors budget. >> then it would be miss ca c.e.o. who would present it. our our numbers would be pushed forward as well? >> yes revised numbers. >> okay. great. thank you so much. >> mr. goebel are you sure it is the 12th? i look at the calendar. it could be the 19th. >> itant correcte -- i stand co. it is the 19th. it is a mistake on my part. >> to our attorney if it is four days later or how many days later than the statutory requirements, that is actually we wouldn't suffer any penalty by submitting it four or five days later? >> i see a delay of days rather than weeks or months being fairly low risk. as i noted there aren't any legal ramifications for delay. we don't want to be seen to be blowing off our statutory obligations. that said, i think four to five days sounds like we can easily rationalize that. >> commissioners, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the meeting of may 15th where mr. goebel will bring the proposed two budgets to us. proposed budget

are we reconvening as the board of supervisors? madam clerk, let's now go our adoption without committee reference. >> mr. president, i believe it's time for public comment, general public comment before we take those items. >> correct. >> at this time, the public may contribute live comments for up to two minutes by dialing the following telephone number and this is streaming across channel 26 is i believe on the live feed for the computer, if you're watching this meeting from your computer. (888)204-5984 and that's (888)204-5984 and when prompted, please enter the access code which is 350-1008 and that's 350-1008. and when you are connected, you will receive another prompt which is to dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue to speak and make sure you're calling from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. if you would rather submit your written comment, we're happy to take that, as well. you can submit an email to board.of.supervisors@sfgov.org. or you can just send something in the po

the regular board meeting. and the march 10, 2020, special board meeting minutes. are there any changes to these minutes? supervisor peskin, is that -- supervisor peskin, do you want to speak on something, on the minutes? we can't hear you. >> clerk: i know, mr. president, my staff is trying to work with him to get his equipment working. sorry, supervisor peskin. all right, my staff are reporting that it sounds as though the speakers on his system are not working at this time. perhaps he can call in, john, if you're listening to me, help him to do that. we can hear you slightly, supervisor peskin, yes. hello? >> supervisor peskin: (indiscernible). >> president yee: supervisor peskin, did you want to make any comments on the minutes? >> supervisor peskin: no. >> president yee: okay. then seeing none, can i have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? motion to approve made by -- >> supervisor mandelman:. >> president yee: mandelman. and seconded by supervisor walton. without objection those minutes are approved after the public comment has been presented. madam

we want to get this to the full board to vote on it, and we are already past our time. the clerk's office has allowed us to be here until 12:30, so i am going to ask my colleagues to save their comments until tomorrow. i made a motion, and it's on the table. i make a motion to move this to the full board. roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you. is there any further business before us? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> chair fewer: thank you. this meetings's adjourned.

that would come before the board. what we are going to do and typically -- we'll be flexible with -- first of all, that hasn't been proposed to my knowledge. that's the first that's being heard. i had a conversation with him and he didn't mention about continuing it to allow them to do the c.u. process. our standard direction is we won't be able to go through the legalization process or give them time to come into compliance but not indefinitely. we would say you have to address this by the end of the year, 60 days, 90 days, depending facts of the case but never such an open-ended resolution where it would be put on ice in perpetuity. >> nothing within your power to do to extend something like that? >> not something we have made a practice of. whether we have the ability to -- then we are going to be getting that request for every case that comes before us and we are never going to be resolving things. everything will be -- in this case why did we do it here for this nice family but we are not doing it. >> well, you ca

the revised budget would go the board's budget and be part of the overall process under the board of supervisors budget. >> then it would be miss ca c.e.o. who would present it. our our numbers would be pushed forward as well? >> yes revised numbers. >> okay. great. thank you so much. >> mr. goebel are you sure it is the 12th? i look at the calendar. it could be the 19th. >> itant correcte -- i stand co. it is the 19th. it is a mistake on my part. >> to our attorney if it is four days later or how many days later than the statutory requirements, that is actually we wouldn't suffer any penalty by submitting it four or five days later? >> i see a delay of days rather than weeks or months being fairly low risk. as i noted there aren't any legal ramifications for delay. we don't want to be seen to be blowing off our statutory obligations. that said, i think four to five days sounds like we can easily rationalize that. >> commissioners, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the meeting of may 15th where mr. goebel will bring the proposed two budgets to us. proposed budget

due to the covid-19 healthy emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public, the board of supervisors litingive chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotedly as

could we raise annual parking permits to the extent that state law allows? could this board officially endorse congestion pricing and perhaps, with tiers, depending on levels of congestion as well as any state legislation we would need to make that happen? finally, could we follow the example of hong kong's mass transit railway corporation in developing housing on our own real estate and using that revenue to fund operations? thanks. >> thank you very much and next speaker, please. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> speaker, please give us your name and i'll start your time. >> question: hi. i'm here today as part of the transit justice coalition and i'm a san francisco native. i grew up in the tenderloin and i'm taking mumi my entire life. i take the bus because it's one of the only options to commute. i never really wanted to own a car in san francisco. but i'm concerned that sfmca is considered raising the facebooke because so many people in my life are working-class people are so reliant on muni to get to is from work. monthly passes would range between $3