upon thome talk about it on rebuttal. thank you. members of the public wish fog ment on this cross examine please, in forward. fiare call nothing remote press star 3. we'll start with those in city hall first. >> hello. i'm david and mice to be speak buffer. >> hold on do you have the timer on >> thank you. you may begin. >> laura 2 minutes >> sorry. >> thank you. you in you may. go ahead. sir jovm i'm a neighbor across the street move in the 2 years. basically when we were looking in the neighborhood around various houses got to see you know the pattern is most of the houses and it is fill in the. there are a number of them this have stairs come down similar. and -- you know upon the -- its almost you know a waste of pace not to have this a missed opportunities the houses it is odd architecture they had originally. so you know, just continuing through the neighborhood. we see those and go to estate sales and same thing. very common pattern and makes sense the way they have dhn around the neighborhood and the way they done this as w

prelogar: so let me respond thome practical concerns about trying to transplant ada case law to thisike to take a shot at describing why i think tt would be legally flawed here. just on the practical point, it's not possleo pick up and uproot the ada case law and transplant it in full to this new context, and the reason for that is because there are signals in the ada itself that congressadn mind very different potential types of accommatns, things like vi to modify your existing facilities and undergo costl novations to make them accessible to those with disabilities or hire an entire ditional employee to function as a sign language interet. and i don't think it would be reasonable, given th differences in the statutory structure, to say, well, that's not available in title vii, but we're sti gng to say that the ada case law carries its full meaning. instead, what you'd have to do is start over, and you could use significt fficulty and expense, but at that point, you recogne at there's daylight between the statutes and it's a content-less standard. you're still going to haveo engage

so i thome is passed unanimously. big companies like at&t, comcast and verizon are responsible for providing equal access to the internet for seniors and disabled people. internet access is essential today. a strong internet connection is so important the world is moving online. and our people in san francisco poor people, people on low income should not be left out. and different neighborhoods should not be left out. you need the internet especially seniors to get health care and stay connected to families and friends. to take care of finance. to be sievically engaged. so -- the internet and pandemic continues to pose a threat to our lives when you have a low quality internet connection we lose our connections. so thank you very much for having the hearing and i'm glsz to be doing this remote. thank you. thank you for sharing your comments next speaker, please good upon afternoon i'm with san francisco council a multisector collaborative digital [inaudible] for older adull and with disability. and as the collaborativ

i'm not familiar i have to talk to thome get more specifics:public from my aid in the next meeting. i'm trying we will try to get machine to be more specific related to your question. it is ms. phillips someone doing research would want to look at know everything they can about the sheriff's department including the rink of complaints the number and type of complaints to know what the office would be doing. i think more information to provide the better. >> we'll of bring one of the investigators on the next round >> thank you. >> please, continue y. move to 2020, the total investigations 49. sworn. 12 sustained. 18 were not sustained. 9 were exonerated and 9 unfound exclude there was one open case. the first cases 13. one sustained. 4 not sustained. 5 exonerated and 3 unfounded. so. move on to the next slide. 2021 there were 51 total investigations. complaints for 37. administratively 14. 47 were sustained. 13 not sustained. 15 exonerated and 8 unfounded. 18, 2 sustained. they went in i hearing. it is actually the deputy's entitleed a hearing. 2 not sustained. 12 exonerated and 2 u

i'm supportive and i thome gets moving quick. gi add my support stellar and excited the solution and hopeful low i will see it coming on line soon. >> for the sake of clarity this is with the proposed modifications to the code amendment as well as the amendments proposeed the development agreement. yes. >> indeed. >> commissioneros this motion to then approve with modifications planning code and zoning map amendments adopt shadow findings, recommend approval to board of supervisors the development agreement pending city upon attorney rerue and approval. p approval the downtown project authorization which conscience commissioner braun. why aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner prul y. aye >> commissioner koppel y. aye yoochl commissioner mory. aye >> commissioner upon tanner. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. commissioners that will place us on item 4 pulled off of consent earlier >> we will take welcome back to the san francisco planning hearing. we left off on item 4 pulled off of consent. for 1160 mission street