. >> supervisor peskin: yes. yeah. thank you. appreciate that. >> definitely. and i do want to quickly talk about the community response. what we have heard is that hosts have noted concerns with increases in application fees and the transition to online application and account management through the online permitting system. neighbors in supportive housing. and the staff has noted general lack of complaints when a host is in compliance with these rules. platform accountability and property owner notification has led to substantial drop in complaints of owners in apartment buildings with rentals conducted by lessees. so the osdr has steadily worked to stop hosting from operating in the city's scarce housing stock. and consequently and we'll continue to vet that short-term housing population to show that honest operators continue while preserving quality of life and long-term residential uses citywide. so that concludes my slides. again, i'm here, happy to continue to answer your questions. >> supervisor peskin: m

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair melgar, for continuing this not once, not twice, but three times, and hopefully, we can send this to the full board with recommendation after public comment. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. with that, madam clerk, let's take public comment if there are any. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. for those in the queue, please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted, and for those who have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue. and it looks like there are no callers in the queue. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. so colleagues, do we have a motion to send this out of committee with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> chair melgar: madam clerk, can we have a roll call on the item, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: thank you. that motion passes. madam clerk, will you please call the next item. >> clerk:

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair melgar, for continuing this not once, not twice, but three times, and hopefully, we can send this to the full board with recommendation after public comment. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. with that, madam clerk, let's take public comment if there are any. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. for those in the queue, please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted, and for those who have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue. and it looks like there are no callers in the queue. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. so colleagues, do we have a motion to send this out of committee with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> chair melgar: madam clerk, can we have a roll call on the item, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: thank you. that motion passes. madam clerk, will you please call the next item. >> clerk:

my name is aaron peskin, so i will keep my mask on. sometimes i don't think that we celebrate our victories enough, and i just want to take a little time out and celebrate something that is all the more important in the middle of this pandemic. it's something that if you are my age, not the age of, you know, officer mah there, when i grew up, we didn't have the internet, and i can't figure out how we actually all survived without it. it was kind of amazing last week, when facebook went down for six hours, and people all over the world didn't know what to do, but that is the world that we live in, and during the pandemic, the internet became all the more important for distance learning, not only in the san francisco unified school district but in every city around the world. it became remarkably important for wellness checks. it became remarkably important just for maintaining our social connections. it became important for the board of supervisors because that's how we had our meetings, was over the internet. we were all sitting in our

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair melgar, for continuing this not once, not twice, but three times, and hopefully, we can send this to the full board with recommendation after public comment. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. with that, madam clerk, let's take public comment if there are any. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. for those in the queue, please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted, and for those who have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue. and it looks like there are no callers in the queue. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. so colleagues, do we have a motion to send this out of committee with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> chair melgar: madam clerk, can we have a roll call on the item, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: thank you. that motion passes. madam clerk, will you please call the next item. >> clerk:

chair peskin. i think we need to re-establish the bridge. >> chairman: go and re-establish the bridge. how long's that going to take, please? >> let's say 5 minutes. >> chairman: all right. we will gavel down at 10:09. >> thank you, chair peskin. >> chairman: thank you. [ captioners transitioning ] [please stand by] [please stand by] . >> chairman: are we good? >> almost there, chair peskin. >> chairman: all right. thank you. [please stand by] >> testing the bridge. >> okay. thank you for your patience, chair peskin. i think we're ready to go. >> chairman: excellent. >> okay. and, with that, [inaudible] >> chairman: good morning. and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, october 18th, 2021. i am the chair of the committee aaron peskin joined by vice chair rafael mandelman and con fi chan and our clerk victor young. mr. young, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. the board recognizes that public access to city service is essential and in

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair melgar, for continuing this not once, not twice, but three times, and hopefully, we can send this to the full board with recommendation after public comment. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. with that, madam clerk, let's take public comment if there are any. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. for those in the queue, please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted, and for those who have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue. and it looks like there are no callers in the queue. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. so colleagues, do we have a motion to send this out of committee with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> chair melgar: madam clerk, can we have a roll call on the item, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: thank you. that motion passes. madam clerk, will you please call the next item. >> clerk:

chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes. matter will be recommended as committee report without objection. >> thank you. next item, please. >> would you like to take a motion to excuse supervisor mandelman or do you want me to read it first. >> read it and i will excuse him second. >> 2. motion appointing supervisor rafael mandelman to the california state association of counties term ending december 1, 2022. >> supervisor mandelman can addvo indicate against preemption of local government authority i would make a motion to excuse supervisor mandelman from this item. >> yes. on that motion. supervisor chan. >> aye. >> president peskin. >> aye. >> mandelman excused. absent. the motion passes. supervisor mandelman is excused from item number 2. 211080. is there any public comment on this motion to appoint supervisor mandelman to the california association of counties? >> regarding that, members of the public who wish to comment on this item call 415-655-0001. meeting id24996640797. pound, pound. if you haven't done so dial sta

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i would like to change the resolution to an amendment, and i thank you, colleagues, for your support. i have to point out that when i put both of the memory ral -- memorial things on my desk, i realized that mrs. taylor and mr. delventhal died exactly the same day one year apart. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin, and i believe we can take these amendments same house, same call, and we can also move forward the amended item, same house, same call, without objection. item 47 passes without objection. madam clerk, please call item 48. >> clerk: item 48, this is a resolution urging president joe biden to pause distribution of covid vaccine boosters to the general population and to take a leadership role in supporting the trade-related intellectual property rights waiver while promoting technology information transfer as it relates to vaccinations to low-to-middle-income countries in order to end this global pandemic. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor

and supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair. i am happy to hear from other folks if supervisor ronen would like to hear the rest of the presentation. i was going to highlight the with the apt time to talkn't a them and to thank you supervisor ronen and folks of the planning department for modernizing and dealing with some of the issues around conversion and tenure. and i wanted to, as we enter this new world or emerging world of state density bonus and various state preemptions, i wanted to revisit the concept of in lieu payments, and i think historically and i didn't believe it to be true that the policy desires of this board and many boards of supervisors has been for onsite and to that when jane king was on the board, and we had a much higher percentage for an in lieu fee out and the lower percentage to onsite. and i am seeing to my mind way too many folks avail themselves of the in lieu and not on site. and i am wondering and this may require fancy foot work with the city attorney given the palmer decision and whether or not

. >> clerk: motion by supervisor peskin to recommend the item supervisor peskin .>> aye. >> clerk: supervisor preston. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor melgar. >> chair: aye. the motion passes unanimously please call item number five . >> clerk: item 5 is a hearing on reinforcement activity policy and programming studies. they're requesting the office of short-term rentaland enforcement, planning department and rents board to report. members who wish to provide public comment call the item number on the screen . that is 415-655-0001 . the meeting id is 2497 312 0703 . then press pound, pound. if you have not done so already rests star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt willindicate you have raised your hand . >> chair: supervisor peskin thank you for calling this important hearing. will you make remarks before we call up the presenter. >> thank you to the planning department for preparing this hearing . these are two important pieces of public policy that short-term rental piece of the public policy was the result of some rather contentious legislation that then supervisor david compos was

>> thank you, chair peskin. to save everyone's time, i have the general question for all candidates, and i would like them to add it to their comments individually. so the general question is: what will be your approach to understand the intent of the ballot measures, whether to work with the legislature that put forward -- the policy-maker that put forward the ballot measures, as well as the petition for the ballot measures? if you could add a little bit of a comment on your approach, i would really appreciate it. thank you so much. >> chair: thank you for that great suggestion. all right. mr. patterson? >> hi, folks. can you hear me okay? i'm not sure you can hear me. you can? >> chair: we can hear you. >> thank you. thank you very much, supervisor peskin. i'm scott patterson, and i'm looking forward to serving on the ballot simplification committee again. it is a committee close to my passion, which is encouraging everybody to vote. and that's my driving intent by being on this committee, is by the work we do

supervisor peskin, do you have any opening comments? >> supervisor peskin: i will reserve my comments until after the public hearing unless i have any questions of the project sponsor, the planning department, or the appellant during the proceeding. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. seeing no one else on the roster, we will ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. you will have up to ten minutes, and i believe the appellants are ryan patterson, brian o'neal, eddie lau, and [indiscernible]. >> good afternoon, supervisors. can you hear me? >> president walton: yeah. >> first of all, our group has never been against or opposed to the new fire house for station 13. if you heard something differently, then it is not true, and it did not come from any of us on our current team. we were told by planning to conduct formal public outreach to our downtown neighbors, which we professionally completed for anyone to see and discuss with zero opposition. planning made us send out the sign-up sheets for everyone who a

vice chair peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i brought this up with staff yesterday.nt on the substance of the matter, but a comment on the public noticing. unlike the previous two items where there is additional detail about the individual allocations, the way this item is written doesn't tell the public, i think, enough about in this case the three contracts covered under the $725,000. and i think that this should be done in the same notice regiment as the previous two items. it should say it's a proposal to give, you know, $100 thousand to -- [indiscernible] -- and $200,000 to the other. i discussed this with staff. i mean, this may well meet brown act requirements, but i think we have, as both the board of supervisors and the county transportation authority, insisted on more comprehensive public notice. it wouldn't hurt my feelings if we continued this to our meeting of the 26th for our first reading, but i'm open to what staff and my colleagues have to say. >> supervisor chan: thank you, commissioner preston. we have tried to rectify that. it's at your call, chai

supervisor chan. >> thank you, chair peskin. i am wondering if there are things through all the things that happened and i am happy to make those motions we will be making the motion to make the clerical amendment to the original -- to the file as it current lie exists. then the motion to duplicate. that would have corrected clerical amendments on both. we will make the motion to move forward to the full board with recommendation and one to the call of the chair. i want to clarify those motions i will be making. whenever in order that you prefer, chair peskin. >> understood. >> thank you, supervisor melgar for hard work and leadership and add more chu to make this happen. >> thank you. why don't we open up for public comment. mr. clerk. >> members of the public who wish to comment on this item call 415-655-0001. meeting id24810239510. pound, pound. star 3 to speak. system will indicate you have raise your hands. raise until you are unmuted to comment. we currently have 18 members of the public in line for public comment. >> firs

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i just want to associate myself with the words of supervisor preston and supervisor ronen. he exercised the law carefully and correctly and with passion. thank you for always be willing to take on more and more without us giving you more staff, so thank you, mr. collins, for your incredible team, and i have your cell phone number, so i'll be calling you for advice from time to time. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president walton. robert, i just wanted to say congratulations. from the time we would hangout on 24 street at st. peter's housing committee, i never imagined that you would be so influential in the lives of all of the folks we served. you have single handedly built systems that we could only imagine, so i want to thank you for your service to us, tenants, and landlords. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, president walton

and supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair. i am happy to hear from other folks if supervisor ronen would like to hear the rest of the presentation. i was going to highlight the with the apt time to talkn't a them and to thank you supervisor ronen and folks of the planning department for modernizing and dealing with some of the issues around conversion and tenure. and i wanted to, as we enter this new world or emerging world of state density bonus and various state preemptions, i wanted to revisit the concept of in lieu payments, and i think historically and i didn't believe it to be true that the policy desires of this board and many boards of supervisors has been for onsite and to that when jane king was on the board, and we had a much higher percentage for an in lieu fee out and the lower percentage to onsite. and i am seeing to my mind way too many folks avail themselves of the in lieu and not on site. and i am wondering and this may require fancy foot work with the city attorney given the palmer decision and whether or not

supervisor peskin, do you have any -- >> supervisor peskin: oh, i have lots that i could continue tilldinner time, but i'll let mr. crawford continue with his slide. >> so regarding planting, we described this as the unintended consequence of success, meaning, we're removing dead, dying, hazardous trees, and it's creating this need for replacement trees, but it's unfunded without the additional money to makeup what we're doing. the press is aware of it, we're aware of it. this is something that's been really important to us to address. the removal numbers here shows the historical number that's jumped up as we've scaled up our program, and it's beginning to taper off over the last couple of years we finally were able to catch up. i don't think this number will drop off because it makes sense, but it does create this need for planting replacement trees: so actually, before i got into that, one more thing that i just wanted to mention was -- let me pull up my notes here -- we do have a tree notification page similar to what danny was mentioning in his presentation. we have this page on o

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i would like to say what i always say at the beginning of these hearings, which is that regardless of what i think about the merits of the project itself, in ceqa appeals i judge them on the merits of the pleadings and the testimony. i have to say respectfully that this is thoroughly a meritless appeal. the argument around the lack of stable finite project description is incorrect. as set forth by the planning department. you can analyze multiple variants as provided for and admin code section 31.20. frankly, the appellant consistently conflates the 447 battery project with the 530 sansome street project. that battery was long ago determined to be individually eligible for listing in the california register. it has been deemed to be a significant historic resource as the planning department said since 1968 and here today. the fact that it is been recommended unanimously by the historic preservation commission as an individual landmark pursuant to article 10, has no bearing on the ceqa

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i just want to associate myself with the words of supervisor preston and supervisor ronen. he exercised the law carefully and correctly and with passion. thank you for always be willing to take on more and more without us giving you more staff, so thank you, mr. collins, for your incredible team, and i have your cell phone number, so i'll be calling you for advice from time to time. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president walton. robert, i just wanted to say congratulations. from the time we would hangout on 24 street at st. peter's housing committee, i never imagined that you would be so influential in the lives of all of the folks we served. you have single handedly built systems that we could only imagine, so i want to thank you for your service to us, tenants, and landlords. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, president walton

and i see supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i just want to commend supervisor preston and say it's been on honor to co-sponsor all twelve pieces of that legislation. thank you, supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, supervisor peskin. and, chair melgar, just a final comment if i may. you know, i think that the public comments put a fine point on the issue around outreach and i will just say that i'm regularly meeting people in my district, i'm sure you both are having a similar experience who do not know about their rights in this context. things have shifted so often with folks who are behind on rent and have lost their jobs in the pandemic and assume they therefore need to move out of their homes. i have talked to folks who are facing threats of eviction that are banned by the laws that we have passed, but they don't know that. and i think, you know, as we urge folks, obviously, you've got to talk to a tenant counselor or tenant rights attorney to really get advice on your situation, but right now as we are still trying to get out of this pandemic, folks, the

supervisor peskin? for continuing this not once, not twice, but three times, and hopefully, we can send this to the full board with recommendation after public comment. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. with that, madam clerk, let's take public comment if there are any. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. for those in the queue, please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted, and for those who have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue. and it looks like there are no callers in the queue. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. so colleagues, do we have a motion to send this out of committee with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> chair melgar: madam clerk, can we have a roll call on the item, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: thank you. that motion passes. madam clerk, will you please call the next item. >> clerk: yes. item 4 -- actually, there's no item 4. tha

supervisor peskin, do you have any -- >> supervisor peskin: oh, i have lots that i could continue till dinner time, but i'll let mr. crawford continue with his slide. >> so regarding planting, we described this as the unintended consequence of success, meaning, we're removing dead, dying, hazardous trees, and it's creating this need for replacement trees, but it's unfunded without the additional money to makeup what we're doing. the press is aware of it, we're aware of it. this is something that's been really important to us to address. the removal numbers here shows the historical number that's jumped up as we've scaled up our program, and it's beginning to taper off over the last couple of years we finally were able to catch up. i don't think this number will drop off because it makes sense, but it does create this need for planting replacement trees: so actually, before i got into that, one more thing that i just wanted to mention was -- let me pull up my notes here -- we do have a tree notification page similar to what danny was mentioning in his presentation. we have this page on

. >> supervisor peskin: yes. yeah. thank you. appreciate that. >> definitely. and i do want to quickly talk about the community response. what we have heard is that hosts have noted concerns with increases in application fees and the transition to online application and account management through the online permitting system. neighbors in supportive housing. and the staff has noted general lack of complaints when a host is in compliance with these rules. platform accountability and property owner notification has led to substantial drop in complaints of owners in apartment buildings with rentals conducted by lessees. so the osdr has steadily worked to stop hosting from operating in the city's scarce housing stock. and consequently and we'll continue to vet that short-term housing population to show that honest operators continue while preserving quality of life and long-term residential uses citywide. so that concludes my slides. again, i'm here, happy to continue to answer your questions. >> supervisor peskin: m

and supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair. i am happy to hear from other folks if supervisor ronen would like to hear the rest of the presentation. i was going to highlight the with the apt time to talkn't a them and to thank you supervisor ronen and folks of the planning department for modernizing and dealing with some of the issues around conversion and tenure. and i wanted to, as we enter this new world or emerging world of state density bonus and various state preemptions, i wanted to revisit the concept of in lieu payments, and i think historically and i didn't believe it to be true that the policy desires of this board and many boards of supervisors has been for onsite and to that when jane king was on the board, and we had a much higher percentage for an in lieu fee out and the lower percentage to onsite. and i am seeing to my mind way too many folks avail themselves of the in lieu and not on site. and i am wondering and this may require fancy foot work with the city attorney given the palmer decision and whether or not

but whatever they don't water, we water. >> supervisor peskin: okay. that's a little different than what mr. weidenmeyer said. maybe we can clear this up, because that's been one of the sources of my confusions or questions. if d.u.f. has planted 5,000 trees, most of them are in

vice chair peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i brought this up with staff yesterday. and this is not a comment on the substance of the matter, but a comment on the public noticing. unlike the previous two items where there is additional detail about the individual allocations, the way this item is written doesn't tell the public, i think, enough about in this case the three contracts covered under the $725,000. and i think that this should be done in the same notice regiment as the previous two items. it should say it's a proposal to give, you know, $100 thousand to -- [indiscernible] -- and $200,000 to the other. i discussed this with staff. i mean, this may well meet brown act requirements, but i think we have, as both the board of supervisors and the county transportation authority, insisted on more comprehensive public notice. it wouldn't hurt my feelings if we continued this to our meeting of the 26th for our first reading, but i'm open to what staff and my colleagues have to say. >> supervisor chan: thank you, commissioner preston. we have tried to rectify that.

supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i would like to say what i always say at the beginning of these hearings, which is that regardless of what i think about the merits of the project itself, in ceqa appeals i judge them on the merits of the pleadings and the testimony. i have to say respectfully that this is thoroughly a meritless appeal. the argument around the lack of stable finite project description is incorrect. as set forth by the planning department. you can analyze multiple variants as provided for and admin code section 31.20. frankly, the appellant consistently conflates the 447 battery project with the 530 sansome street project. that battery was long ago determined to be individually eligible for listing in the california register. it has been deemed to be a significant historic resource as the planning department said since 1968 and here today. the fact that it is been recommended unanimously by the historic preservation commission as an individual landmark pursuant to article 10, has no bearing on the ceqa

supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: likewise. >> president walton: thank you. we appreciate you for calling attention to this matter. >> supervisor safai: thank you all for your support. >> president walton: thank you. and seeing no one else on the roster, i believe we can take this item same house same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items? >> clerk: i have none to present, mr. president. >> president walton: colleagues, this brings us to the end of our agenda. madam clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> clerk: that concludes our business for today. >> president walton: as we part, never forget that justice is what love looks like in public. cornell west. this meeting is adjourneded. >>> good morning everyone. i bet you all are wondering why we're here today. aren't you wondering? this is probably the worst kept secret in san francisco, politics, but today i'm here to make a very important announcement. yesterday, the public utilities commission approved the contr

supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: likewise. >> president walton: thank you. we appreciate you for calling attention to this matter. >> supervisor safai: thank you all for your support. >> president walton: thank you. and seeing no one else on the roster, i believe we can take this item same house same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items? >> clerk: i have none to present, mr. president. >> president walton: colleagues, this brings us to the end of our agenda. madam clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> clerk: that concludes our business for today. >> president walton: as we part, never forget that justice is what love looks like in public. cornell west. this meeting is adjourneded. shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services within our neighborhoods, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will yo

supervisor peskin . >> thank you mister walton. this is not an on sequence question but as far as planning is here and it was supervisor preston who got me on this line of thought relative to pro forma and economics which is insofar asthis is a bonus state density project , doesn't the planning department require the project sponsor to submit documentation as to why they need waivers from local code provisions to create more affordability and access waivers or concessions or incentives orwhatever , all that stuff is called. i'm getting my hands around it. it's the question of the planning department which is what financial analysis do they provide thedepartment and how is that analyzed ? >> president: planning? >> how do they justify their statedensity bonus ? >> supervisor peskin, though waivers and congestion the sponsors thought was reviewed by the current planners and the justification and rationale is provided in the motion for those specific approval and in the in addition the product sponsor prepared of feasibility analysis

. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, if you would allow me to drill down because you can let me -- but it -- >> president walton: go ahead, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. can you go back to the previous slide, please? you're saying it's not an individual historic resource, and we can argue that it is or it isn't, but when you say the district is the resource, and if you demolish one of 15 contributors, is what you are arguing is that the other 14 are enough that the district remains intact? is that the argument? >> true -- yes. so i'll defer to the preservation specialist who can answer more specific questions, but essentially, what you said in this case. in this case, the hrer found that the demolition of this one resource did not have a significant impact on this particular historic district. >> supervisor peskin: right, but what's the standard? does that mean that when you hit eight, that that's the standard? assuming that it's not individually eligible, but you are sa