tv BOS Full Board of Supervisors SFGTV September 15, 2020 6:00pm-9:31pm PDT
was giving us kind of a low point on where the road was lumping up, so we figured that the pipeline is fairly straight, and that those two points face on what pg&es instruction would give us, the pipeline. and the pipeline was surveyed by an additional surveyor, and a response was done. >> supervisor ronen: okay. okay. and who prepared the initial response and evacuation plan? >> we worked with the fire department to prepare that. we tried many, many times to get in contact with the san francisco department of emergency. i was sent hundreds of e-mails, i called and left messages.
i went there personally many times, never got a call return. i would have liked to have gotten their input, but i wasn't able to. pg&e indicated they had a very robust evacuation plan that's being developed with sfdem and the sf fire department, but they're not allowed to share that department. so i ran everything back and forth with pg&e, and i was able to get as much information as possible to prepare the plan. >> supervisor ronen: okay. and i believe that my last question is can you explain
whether or not the road that will be built, extending folsom to the properties in the evacuation plan, given the steep flow? for example, has it been determined if compaction will need to be determined for the steep slope or the new roadway? >> yes, all of that is being determined. it is only when we start the new projects, those will have to be dug and compacted, but we allow plenty of distance
between pipeline 109 and the sewer line that's the closest, so i think it's about fine feet away, and the gas pipeline is another 6 foot away from the sewer line. only the laterals from the houses will go over the pipeline 109, and we -- based on the elevation points we have, we were able to verify that there is enough distance to meet all the requirements, and the sections were reviewed by d.p.w. and pg&e, and i think by all the departments in the process of street improvements that we're still going through. >> supervisor ronen: and were the materials and equipment ne needed to do that considered in the evacuation plan? >> exactly.
that is described in the vibration management plan. the appellant keeps on saying we have to have a big roller to compact the asphalt. there is no asphalt. any street going over, i think it's 18%, is required to be made in concrete by d.p.w. that's d.p.w. code. there is no compaction required of a roller, and i don't think a roller as what's described by appellant could go up such a steep slope. again, all the work for the street is going to be done under d.p.w. and pg&e supervision. >> supervisor ronen: okay. that's all my questions. thank you.
>> thank you. >> president yee: okay. so next up would be for the public comment in opposition of the appeal and in support of the project. so what you would have to do is press star and then three and be added to the queue to speak. okay. madam clerk d-- and you have three minutes to provide public comment. >> clerk: okay. mr. president, i'll provide the phone number, 415-655-0001. press the meeting i.d., press
pound, and pound again, then press star, three to be entered into the queue to speak. operations, could you please queue up the operations. >> operator: madam clerk, i'll unmute the first caller. >> clerk: welcome, caller. once you're unmuted, you can just begin your comments. >> okay. health and wellness. >> clerk: okay. welcome. >> hi. thanks for taking my call. i'm angela adler, and i'm a resident of the districts, and i'm calling to ask the board of
supervisors to reject the police officer -- >> clerk: ma'am, i'm pausing your time. so we're taking public comment in support of the folsom street appeal. we are currently taking comment in support of the project sponsor. general public comment will not be called until later in the meeting. we hope that you stay on board. just press star, three, and that'll put you back in line to be present for the meeting. the budget for san francisco is on the agenda today, but public comment has already been fulfilled, so we're not taking public comment on the budget itself. we appreciate your participation, and we thank you for your patience.
okay. operations, are there other callers on the line for this appeal, for this project? >> supervisors, sean keegan, residential builders association. this hearing calls into question our process. the appeal is calling into question the long-standing tradition of hiring and of providing reports. this project is topic as it certainly affects the planning department and many, many other departments. the time of this question has to be looked at. the project sponsor and his team of consultants have been meeting with the planning department, the district supervisors, and other city officials since the last hearing. supervisors, that's almost three years ago today, raising or calling into question our city's process of hiring
third-party independent consultants or experts at this particular time is disingenuous. the motion approved by the board of supervisors almost three years ago called for the planning department to a, provide additional information and analysis, and b, wanted to make sure that the analysis and the consultation was done by an expert, and they were independent. so as long as i can remember, the planning department has followed the same standard practice of hiring third party independent experts, and those standards and those practices were followed in this case. the project sponsor did not deviate from this process. supervisors, i certainly do not like all of our current policies, and my members don't
like all of our current policies, and if you have the time, i'll give you a long list of policies that i would like to see changed. but the truth of the matter is, we all must play by the rule and policies in place at that time. we cannot and should not -- >> clerk: your time is up. thank you for your time. operations, is there any caller in the queue in support of the project sponsor? >> good evening, supervisors. i just wanted to call in support of this project because i think our building and planning process is absolutely broken. now, this nice man has been working on getting this -- these pair of houses built on his property for obviously more than three years, obviously has communicated with all of the relevant agencies. he's spoken with pg&e, he's spoken with department of
public works, and what the result of all of this insanity in our public building process is a housing crisis and homeless people on our street. so these fundamental issues to our city are all related. we need to decrease the cost of housing, and when we have our analysis tell us that it costs more than $600,000 to build a low-income unit in the city, that's broken. and this process, and that we're all sitting here, is the reason we don't have housing. it's the reason we didn't have housing three years ago for this specific unit. now this process takes decades, and it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it takes attorneys.
and yeah, sometimes there's a gas line, but this process is what's broken here, not these plans. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, is there any caller in the queue in support of the project? hello, caller, once you're unmuted, you can just begin your comments. okay. >> hello? >> clerk: yes, hello, welcome. >> i just want to say i support the project. i think it should go through. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, is there another caller on the line in support of the project? >> operator: madam clerk, that
completes the queue. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. president? >> president yee: okay. thank you for your comments, and now that that's done, i will close public comment. [gavel]. >> president yee: and then, lastly, about -- or there was no public comment. >> clerk: there was public comment. >> president yee: oh, yes. last part of this is to let the appellant present rebuttal argument. we have up to two minutes. >> okay. thank you, president yee and supervisors. i feel for the project sponsors, but if they'd done it right for the first time with this extraordinary site, they would be done by now, and we categorically disagree with what they're saying about the roller.
the project sponsor's own consultant prepared the d.n.p. instead of an independent consultant as required. planning had a peer review of the erroneous report done by the sponsor's consultant. your requirements have not been met. the legal standard is clear. if there is any substantial evidence in the record supporting even a fair impact, and that's a quote, regardless of evidence on the other side, the appeal must be granted. if the vibration isn't safe, it doesn't matter if pg&e is
on-site or not. you heard about a student conflict of interest within the fire department which approved the management plan. sfpd did not respond to a sunshine request for documents from this project. pg&e have spent the last few days trying to shore up their approval. one of the biggest risk factors here is still unevaluated, and i'll add that pg&e refused to provided their underlying records and analysis for review, and they're giving themselves a three-hour response time if there's an accident. this was a pipeline had a 30-feet pine tree growing on top of it, and they didn't remove the stump.
they say they didn't miss it, but if they didn't miss it, why did they leave it growing there? the emergency management and evacuation plan that sfpd approved is patently dangerous. it used the 325-foot radius instead of the 750-foot radius. the purpose of meetings is to properly implement the plan, but if the plan is seriously flawed, and ceqa requires that it be fixed now before referral, referral is actually illegal. ceqa is clear what needs to happen. thank you. >> clerk: sir, thank you for your comments, and your three minutes is concluded. >> president yee: okay. thank you. i guess this public hearing has
been held and is now filed. [gavel]. >> president yee: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes, thank you, president yee. this project has caused me more heartache than i think even the 500-unit projects and 300-unit projects in the mission that has such a major impact on the neighborhood and the economic impact on the neighborhood because these safety concerns are very real, and they're very intense, and they've impacted me enough. i live very close to the site. i don't live close enough to the site that i would be impacted out by the decision, but i live close enough that i would be impacted. and i live close enough that i
know so many of the neighbors that live even closer to this pipeline, and they are dear friends of mine. i have taken this as seriously as one could take a project. i've spent countless hours over my term three separate times analyzing and trying to deeply understand this project. so have two of my legislative aides -- it's got through two aides because one of them worked in my office and then moved on, so we've taken this as seriously as we could. i feel that two years ago, when i felt that a mitigated -- an additional mitigated review was needed of this project, that we set forth clear criteria for which the project sponsor had
to follow and give us more information and do additional study, and that the project sponsor had done that, and he's made his best to do that, and he's given us the best information that we've required from him. in addition, today, when i'm feeling frustrated that so much additional review is going to happen after this appeal is before us and decided, that both the fire marshal and d.p.i. and d.p.w. is going to have an additional review process where many additional safety conditions are going to be required of the project sponsor to make sure that this project is built in a safe
fashion. i spoke with the d.p.w. director this morning, who had put a plastic bag flag in this the project to notify my office when d.p.w. permits are issued and when the street permits on the project are issued on the street. we already talked to the fire amarshal that he was going to have additional requirements for a fire and safety plan, and i will do the same for d.b.i. i will continue -- i'm not disappearing after today. i will continue to be deeply involved as it moves forward in each of these steps because i will not let a project be built in this neighborhood without every single safety requirement
that we could possibly put into place in order to make sure that my constituents are safe. while we build normally over pipelines in the city, and that happens over time, i just don't know what else that i can ask from this project sponsor to make the conditions safer. and i want to thank the appellants who pushed so hard so that these additional investigations and preparations could be done. they never would have been done without you, and i am deeply sorry to disappoint you today. i hate disappointing my constituents, but again, i will not disappear. i'm going to work with you and with the city departments to
make sure those plans are adequate and robust, and we'll be by your side and be vigilant as this moves through the building permit process, and we'll hold the sponsor liable to keep this project safe. and with that, i'll make a move to approve item 69 and table items 70 and 71. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. i put my name onto hopefully second the motion that supervisor ronen just made, and i do that with the same pain because i know the appellants, but i do have to say that i was on the board that adjudicated this matter that sent back a very clear set of requirements,
which requirements have been met, and we could have done something different two years ago, instead, that this required an e.i.r., but we did not come to that conclusion based on what was in the record at that time. so i'm on this to second supervisor ronen's motion. >> president yee: okay. there's been a motion made to approve item number 69 and table 70 and 71. and madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes, mr. president, i will do so, but at this point, i'm asking mr. angus and miss patterson to turn their
cameras off at this point. okay. on the motion to approve item 69 and table items 70 and 71 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are ten ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, then, item 69 is approved, and items 70 and 71 are tabled. [gavel]. >> president yee: okay. all right. let's go onto our third and
final special order for 3:00 p.m. madam clerk, can you please call items 72 through 75? >> clerk: item 72 is the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act issued as a categorical exemption by the planning department on februanovember 2 2019, for the proposed project at 178 seacliff avenue, to demolish an existing three-story single-family residence with a detached garage and to construct a new three-story over basement single-family residence with a
two-car garage. >> president yee: okay. colleagues, we have before us the appeal before us for the hearing of determination of exemption from environmental review. after the hearing, we will vote whether to exemption the project under environmental review under ceqa. we will provide as follows. up to ten minute presentation by appellant or their representative, up to three minutes each for public comment. up to ten minutes for the
project sponsor or their representative, then up to three minutes for those to speak in support of the project or in opposition to the appeal, and two minutes for rebuttal or objection. seeing no objection, we'll proin th proceed in this way, and the hearing is now open. supervisor stefani, do you have any comments? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president yee. i will wait until after presentations to make my public comments. >> president yee: okay. at this time, appellant can make their statements.
>> next slide, please. so we are here because we raised an appeal of our discretionary review situation, and it's because there are situations that impact the public interest, and there's an extraordinary circumstance here in which this project does not comply with the seacliff historic district and residential design guidelines, and so i am going to focus on the fair argument issue to demonstration that the project that we have materially impairs the ceqa avenue historic district resulting in a significant impact, and this gets to the question that supervisor peskin and president yee raised in your first
further needing a review. -- or resembles nothing like the style and character-defining features of the district. without that, there is a considerable concern that there is a significant ad verse impact to the historic district. there is no dispute that no other structures since 2006 have been demolished. no structures have been replaced with buildings that are out of character with the
neighborhood other than one, and so now, all of a sudden, 14 years later, the project sponsoring the planning department claim it doesn't matter, because we'll just rely on how everybody else complies, and we'll rely on what everybody else says is significant. well, i hate to tell you, that's not how ceqa works. we request that this project be held to the same standards that the city has been applying based on the residential design guidelines, based on the secretary of interior standards for how you treat historic property, and look at the context in which this building is being constructed, being
demolished. >> good evening, president yee and supervisors. can you go to the next slide, please. this slide is from an earlier submission made, and i'd just like to go over it quickly to emphasize that the proposed design is not compatible with the historic district. the front yard, the form and order of the massing of the proposed house, the facade composition, and the type of windows it has, the house's relationship with grade, and facade of the historic district. [please stand by]
earliest contributors to replace it with something that is not compatible. we don't have the data and we haven't done the evaluation to reach that specific conclusion. the theory that it falls back on, the categorical exemption approval, is that only one house in an historic district so what difference can that make.
here in this process the lack of information has been taken, instead of a speed bump, it's been taken as a reason to put your foot down on the gas and move forward and improve it faster. it makes it hard. routinely here people say preservation is subjective or arbitrary. we usually respond that it's
methodical and objective, but that response will not be validated if [indiscernible] is proof for this project. the methodology and standards of preservation and people are getting short shrift and it poses a real risk of harm to the district and will encourage people to doubt preservation. please think very carefully about this before you approve this project. thank you very much. >> and with that, if anyone has any further questions, please let us know. we really request your consideration to at least take a step back, look at this building for what it's doing to the district. there was a reason that you defined this district for purposes of preservation to then turn around and say it doesn't matter anymore, because everybody else complied and there's no need to do anything further, turns secret and historic planning on its head.
so we ask that you send this back to the drawing board. we have proposed ways of perhaps addressing this in the context of the surrounding buildings. that was not considered by the project sponsor. and so we request that you consider that as the next step here to see if there might be a better way to harmonize building on 178 seacliff with the rest of the district. thank you so much. >> mr. president, you are muted. >> quick question: when was the historical district formed? >> 2006. >> thank you. >> but not designated. >> it's not an historic
district. it's an eligible district. >> thank you. i am not seeing anybody on the roster for questions. so we are going to ask for -- if there's any public comments in support. you have two minutes. >> thank you, mr. president. okay. operations, do we have a caller on the line? >> madam clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> i see no callers for public comment. that part of public comment is now closed. let's see. let's move to our department. you have ten minutes to give a
presentation. >> good afternoon, president yee and the board members. i am a senior environmental planner with the planning department, and i am here with other planning staff to address the categorical exemption appeal for the project at 178 seacliff avenue. i do have a presentation prepared, and i am going to be sharing it with you. can you please confirm that you can see my presentation? awesome. okay. as the appellant just mentioned, the project includes the demolition of a three-storey single family residence with an attached garage and the construction of a residence over basement. this project is located in the california register, eligible seacliff historic district. and i also want to point out on this slide that you're looking at that we are looking at updated renderings of the project, that are different than
what mr. knapp showed during his presentation, and i will come back to, later in my presentation, as to why that's important. on november 19th, 2019, the department determined that the project was categorically exempt under 3, which i think you're all very familiar with by now, which allows for exemptions of new constructions of conversions of small structures and that no further environmental review was required. i want to emphasize that a project that qualifies for a categorical exemption undergoes a robust environmental departmental review process, including for historic resources, and this process is to determine if the project would have any significant impacts to the environment. i'm going to quickly go through the issues raised by the appellant. there are two main issues that the appellant raises: one is the project's potential impact on aesthetics, and the second is the project's potential impacts
to historic resources at the district level. the appellant argues that these potential impacts could trigger the need for an environmental impact report. as outlined in our response, our departmental findings are that, an ira is required if it supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, and in this particular case, we're talking about aesthetic and historic resources. i've outlined our response upon reviewing previous technical documents, the appellant letters and the knapp report submitted by the appellant, we found our review adequately analysed both the project's success on aesthetic and historic resources, and that the project qualifies for a categorical exemption. the appellant contends that the project results in a significant
aesthetic impact. according to the statute, a project shall not have a significant aesthetic impact if it is located in an urban zone. this project qualifies as it replaces an existing home with a new home in an urban residential district and is located in a transit-priority area, within half a mile of muni bus lines. i also want to emphasize that the project underwent a lengthy review project for compliance with the city's residential design guidelines, and i think that some of those results you see in between the changes that mr. knapp showed versus what the project actually looks like today. the residential design review team determined that the composition materials, portions and details of the proposed building would be consistent with and a compatible fit with the other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. in addition, i'm sure that the
project sponsor who is present here today will be happy to answer any questions about the project design that you may have. my colleague alison will now discuss our historic resources finding. >> thank you, florintina. this project has underwent a robust environmental review and i will now outline the historic review process. an historic resource evaluation part one was prepared by a qualified consultant on october 10th, 2017. the department reviewed this report along with other research undertaken by department preservation staff and concurred with the consultant report finding and historic resource evaluation response part i issued on may 4th, 2018. part one found that 178 seacliff is not an individually significant resource but is a contributor to the california register eligible seacliff historic district. using california register
criteria, the hrar part 1 determined that 178 seacliff is not associated with significant events or people and that architectural elements are not distinct enough to qualify it as an individually significant example of a style, type, or period. staff concluded that although 178 seacliff was designed by bay area master architect edward j.bowles, this building is a modest example of his work. therefore it is not eligible as an historic resource and its demolition would not result in an impact on historic resource. the appellant does not dispute this finding. department staff did determine that 178 seacliff is a contributor to the historic district. the district was identified by the department as eligible in 2007 through the ceqa process. the district show cases spanish revival, edwardian, and hybrid
arts and crafts tudor architectural styles. the department found that the district is significant as an excellent example of early 20th century residential park design. the period of significance is 1913 through 1935. where the appellant argues that boundaries were not identified, boundaries are identified in the part 1 and are closely aligned with the original seacliff residential tract. the 178 seacliff was constructed in 1914 during the period of significance of the district and contains modern craftsman architectural elements consistent with the district's character. this figure shows the large size of the district and the location of 178 seacliff and the district in blue. after detailed review, department preservation staff determined an historic resource environmental response part 2 issued on october 22nd, 2019, that the project would not cause a significant impact to the district. the appellant disputes this finding. during our analysis, we found
that the scale of the proposed building and its setbacks are in keeping with the district. however, we found that the proposed style of the new construction is not considered compatible with the seacliff district. the key take-away here is the project chris bold elements that are cattabl compatible with the district. the threshold for a substantial adverse change to an historic resource under ceqa is material impairment. it occurs when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historic resource that conveys historical and justifies eligibility to the california register. in this case the historic resource is the california eligible seacliff historic district. the department finds that the demolition would not result in a significant impact to the difference as the subject building is one of a collection
of similar buildings. in addition, the type, period, and style of the building would still be strongly represented in the district. the construction of a stylistically incompatible residence would not result in the inability of the district to express its collective significance as an early 20th century residential park. the appellant's letter includes a report from mr. knapp, as you heard from. he only encourages further study, confirms the new design is not architecturally compatible and does not have new evidence. the department continues to find that the project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance -- and the significance of a historic resource. the department determines there was no cumulative impact to the historic district. upon reviewing all previous projects within the district, we confirm that all but one previously approved project was compatible with the ceqa
historic district. in addition no demolition of buildings have occurred since the identification of the district. as such the department -- as such the district's potential landscape will retain good overall integrity and consider to convey the district's significance as a residential park, even with the proposed project. therefore, the project in conjunction with past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the district would not combine to cause a significant impact to the district. in conclusion, after evaluating the supplemental appeal letter received and hearing what the applicant just presented, we find no substantial additional information that would make us revise our ceqa findings. the appellant did not identify it failed to comply with ceqa guidelines or the administrative code. as the project would not result in aesthetic or historic resource impacts, we respectfully recommend the board uphold the categorical exemption
and reject the appellant's appeal. this concludes our presentation. we are available to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. i do have questions of the planning department. if i may proceed? >> president yee? >> i want to ask staff: do you see if the president is still connected to the team's meeting? >> i am. >> okay. very good. >> we are done with -- >> yes. >> any questions? >> president yee, i do have some questions for the planning -- >> supervisor stephanie, go
ahead. >> thank you, yes. so it the current design of the proposed project code compliant, or did it need any type -- did it meet the conditional use authorization for the building? >> supervisor stephanie, this is david winslow. the project is code compliant and did not require a conditional use authorization. on june 11th, it was heard at the planning commission under a discretionary review, and that discretionary review was denied by 7-0. >> okay, thank you for that. in terms of the residential design guidelines, which are very important, and i know florentina talked about that. can you go over, and i think page 83 and 84 in the packet, i don't know if you can bring that up, but can you walk through how
the building fits within the residential design guidelines in terms of [indiscernible], things like that? >> again, david winslow, staff architect for the planning department and lead for the residential design advisory team. i'd be happy to do so. the scale and massing of the building is compatible with a two-storey plus massing of the existing context. the setbacks are comparable to the existing buildings. while found not to be imitative or recreate previous historical styles, therefore the incompatibility with the district, the residential design guidelines were intended to result in designs that are compatible with the patterns of the existing context, not to imitate the historical styles, and as such, the proportion, the
massing, and the materiality of this building were found to be compatible with the residential design guidelines. in a way they're fitting with the other buildings that happen to be of an older style, more in a general sense than an imitation sense of the present project. >> okay. thank you for that. in terms of the historic analysis, how -- the existing house that's there now, i know that alison mentioned it doesn't have any character-defining features that can make it historic. can you just expand on that a little bit? >> yes. so we did say that it was a contributor to the district. it is sort of a modern -- a modest example of a single-family home, and it doesn't represent a high architectural style. so it doesn't really have that many noteworthy elements.
it has minimal detailing, stucco cladding, food fram wood frame , all of which are sort of detailed in the craftsman style. so we would say that it's definitely a modest example of edward g. bowles architecture. he has considerable architecture in the city, significant examples of his work in the city. so in that regard, we did not feel that it rose to the level of individual significance under any california register-eligible criteria. >> okay. so if it were to, i'm wondering what the standard -- what would need to be met in order for this project to need additional environmental review based on whether or not it is historic? the building itself. >> if it had been found to be an individual resource, and it was being demolished, that would definitely result in additional environmental review.
when we're looking at this particular historic resource evaluation, we're looking at the district, and so therefore the determination that planning made as we presented is that there is not material impairment to the district. the district is still able to express itself as a significant example of an early 20th century residential park, and so therefore it's still eligible to the california register. and so that was the level of analysis that we were using for this project because in this case we're looking at the district as a whole as the resource. >> okay. so as i understand it -- go ahead. >> go ahead. >> so as i understand it, if the question before us is say whether the proposed project would make it no longer eligible as an historic district? >> that's correct. so the criteria that we're using here is material impairment of
the historic resource, and what we've determined is that the demolition of this particular building, because of the fact that there are other examples of this style, better examples, i notice that there are examples of this style period represented in the district, that the demolition wouldn't cause material impairment to the district, nor would the construction of the architecturally incompatible building cause material impairment to the district. >> okay. and within the district, there are different types of homes, different types of architecture, is that correct? >> that's correct. yes, there's multiple different styles. many of them are what we would call period revival styles that were very popular in the 1920s, but there are definitely a range of styles that are within the period of significance from 1930 to
1935 -- i'm sorry, 1913 to 1935. and then there are buildings that were built outside of the period of significance that also have a range of architectural styles, many of them mid-century modern. >> okay. i just want to be clear again. so based on your analysis, if this project moves forward, it will not impact c seacliff's eligibility to be an historic district. >> that's correct. >> supervisor, i'm sorry, i missed you earlier. >> no, mr. president. i prefer that the district supervisor from district 2 and seacliff precede me. so thank you for recognizing me. look, number one, and i say this candidly, relative to the appellant and the parties -- the
project sponsor, i mean, this is very well-to-do people who are opposing one another. and as i said in an earlier matter, as we have done three ceqa appeals today, relative to the gain or loss of housing, this means nothing. so this is really a non-political ample indication of ceqa. and in this particular instance, i agree with the planning department's -- or part of the department's analysis, which is, it's not about aesthetics, but it is about historic preservation. but i think where we part company is the notion that a contributor is not subject to a higher level of environmental review. so the notion that you're forwarding is that it is
categorically exempt because unless the entire district is destroyed, an individual contributor by whoever this architect is who apparently did the craftsman style, that you clearly say is a contributor to a potential district. you can't categorically exempt that. i mean, it's just -- it's wrong on its face in this supervisor's opinion. i can't see how you can come to that conclusion. a contributor has the same value as an individually eligible resource, in my opinion -- or it's not an opinion, it's actually case law. so that's all i have to say. >> i see nobody else on the roster -- >> actually, president -- >> supervisor stephanie.
>> through the chair to the planning department, just a follow-up on supervisor peskin's question. does the -- i mean, from what i've read in the packet and meeting with both the project sponsor and the appellant, it was not my understanding that a house, the project, didn't in and of itself need further environmental review, it was contributing to a potential historic district. so if you can clear up that for me or just explain why that might be or the case law supervisor peskin is referring to, that would be helpful. >> i'm happy to respond to that. i also see that [indiscernible] has put her name in. >> so speak up if you're from
the planning department. >> okay. this is -- okay. so the department determination is that the district in this case is the resource. i would not say that the department would say outright that any time a contributor is demolished or that new construction is proposed that that is a significant and unavoidable impact that would cause imperia material impairme. i would say when we looked at this particular contributor in this case we determined that because there is a range of similar type buildings from a similar period that this building type and style and period would still be represented within the district and so therefore the demolition would not cause a significant and unavoidable impact to the district. and then on top of that, we have also looked at the new construction, and as we've discussed, while there are --
that new construction is architecturally incompatible with the district in that it does not express period revival style, it does express some of the character-defining features of the district, such as massing and setbacks. and so in that regard, we also find that it would not cause material impairment to the district. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, mr. president. no, this needs a [indiscernible] under the law. you can do, whether it's compatible or not compatible. but it is the loss of an historic resource. it is not categorically exempt. it is just abundantly clear. if you had said at the beginning, you've got a mitigated dec., you've got to be a [indiscernible].
i can't believe this is before this board and we have a lot of stuff going on, a budget and a bunch of stuff, and i'm sorry that the parties did not resolve this matter. with no disrespect to my friend, supervisor stephanie. but this is a contributor. you have to do mitigation. you have to do a hab's hare. this is like a no brainer. it's clear. >> it's the department's determination that the historic resource in this case is the district, not the contributor. >> no, it's like if you build a mine next to yosemite national park, is it going to cause impact to yosemite national park, but it doesn't count because it's only right outside the park boundary? no, that dog does not hunt. >> i mean, it's our determination that this is a project within the district. we acknowledge that.
we acknowledge that it is removal of a district contributor. we acknowledge that there are incompatibilities with the character-defining features in relationship to the architectural character, but we don't acknowledge that that causes material impairment to the district. >> if you get rid of one beautiful victorian, it's okay. but if you get rid of 20 of them, it's not okay? is that your argument? >> our argument is that if that one beautiful victorian was an individually resource, as determined by the department, then that would be a significant and unavoidable impact if you were to demolish it. >> no, you've still got to have it recorded and you have to do a mitigated dec. this dog does not hunt. >> no, we would agree with that in relationship to the demolition of an individual resource. of course. >> and as i said -- this is lisa gibson, the environmental review
officer, through the chair, i'm pleased to support what my staff specialist alison is saying. the case law has clearly established that demolition of an individually eligible resource is automatically a significant unavoidable impact, that there's no way to mitigate that. you can to a lesser significant level. it is routinely deployed as a mitigation measure for demolition of a resource. so we would be compelled to do an environmental impact report for such a project that would demolish an individual resource. in the case of a contributor to a district, there is no case law that requires, nor does the statute or guidelines establish that demolition of a contributor to an historic resource is a significant impact on the environment. this approach that the planning department has that we've been doing in my 20 years of practice here at the planning department, since i've been here, that has
always been the case and this is an approach that we have that is developed in consultation with our city attorney's office, kristen jensen is here today and she can speak to the case law on this. but as a matter of our practice, it is correct what alison said, that the resource is the district. now, to say again, when we have a project site that is -- a project that is affecting a contributor to the resource, we do conduct an environmental impact analysis to determine whether the project would result in a significant impact on that historic resource and we are compelled to do so as part of our review for categorical exemption because that is a disqualifier to use of a categorical exemption and we use the threshold of a material impairment. if we were to require -- disqualify projects that require
mitigation, there are some districts that have hundreds of contributors, like the lower nob hill district. those type of districts are ones where they can still convey their significance, even with the loss of resources that are contributors. in this case, you know, as we do in all cases, we look at the individual district and the character defining features of it and the number of contributors and then we conduct our analysis to see, would the district be materially impaired as defined by ceqa. again, there's no case law, statute, or guideline that states that demolition of a contributor to a district is a significant impact. >> mr. president -- can i have the floor back? miss gibson, are you aware of 1974 tilt-up concrete structure at 5340 samson that is fire station no. 13 that you have determined to be an eligible
resource? are you telling me -- yeah. are you telling me that something that you actually have already identified as a contributor to a potential district or an undesignated district doesn't get ceqa review but you're going to actually have fire station 13 have an er? there's something really broken here. >> i think that actually you have -- don't have the facts straight, with all due respect, on 530 samson -- >> i would love to hear that. >> yes. so we have not made that determinatiodetermination on 53. on this project that is the subject of appeal we have made the determination that there is no resource present but there is a district present and the project would not result in material impairment to that district. >> thank you.
>> supervisor mandelman? >> all right. i hesitate to stumble into this because supervisor peskin is far more steeped in this than i am, as are the attorneys and planners here. but i am curious about this idea that the demolition of a contributing resource doesn't necessarily trigger the need for mitigation because -- i mean, is there any concept here analogous to sort of a cumulative view? at some point if you are or have been getting rid of contributing resources, there's an impact. >> i can respond to that. again, lisa gibson, environmental review officer. yes, indeed. you are now into the part of the analysis that we do, that is the
cumulative impact analysis. that is where we look at the impacts of the project, together with any other projects that are generally cumulative projects, reasonably foreseeable future projects or recent past ones. and we look at the combination of effects of the projects together. so in this case we have an historic district with multiple contributors, and as alison already described, we conducted an analysis to review those projects to see, is there any cumulative effect of this project together with other projects that would result in the materially impairment? and we concluded that there would not be. and that would be -- that is our cumulative impact analysis. if we had -- let's say that we had found that the proposed project, in combination with other projects, would materially impair the district to the degree to which it would no longer convey its significance, then we would conduct a second part of a test.
so cumulative impact analysis in general is a two-part analysis. first we determine if there is a combined impact that would be significant. so if there was a combination of projects that would materially impair the district to the degree to which it would no longer retain its eligibility, then we look at whats the project's contribution to that and is it cumulatively considerable? those are the parameters established by ceqa and practised. so any given project is responsible for essentially -- we need to look at the impacts of that individual project and ultimately determine its contribution -- in effect that would be cumulative. we have done impact -- we have done eirs for a project where an individual project has resulted in the material impairment of a district, and in combination with other projects, and that that has triggered the
threshold where, yeah, they're a material impairment to the district and that, you know, demolition, we're talking -- or new construction is going to require an environmental impact report. so that's the context in which the methodology we use, and in this case where we found that we're not even close to that point where there would be a significant cumulative effect, that would result on the district. at some point down the road, you know, there could be. and i think that there's a policy question that's implicit and it's about the policy question of what is the city policy about retention of historic resources. and ceqa is not a policy tool, and our methodology approach adhered to the ceqa guidelines and case law. >> how far back do you look in a cumulative analysis?
>> what we start with are projects that are -- we always look at any projects that have been recently approved but not yet built. we also look at projects that have been -- for which we have environmental applications on file and the staff here can speak to the more specifics that were encountered in this project -- >> miss gibson, i don't want to interrupt. but i think what supervisor mandelman is asking is how many projects in the past do you look at that have changed the composition of the history of the district? and i apologize for interrupting, but it's not -- what you have coming forward but what happened over the last ten years -- >> let me respond to this one and then, alison, you can take it to the specifics. in terms of what ceqa requires, with regard to cumulative, we are looking at what is on the ground today is baseline, existing conditions. so we don't go back into the past to look at projects that
have already been constructed and are on the ground now, as something that is a future cumulative project. so we look at the existing conditions, the baseline that is established by ceqa, and then with regard to future projects -- when you talk about past, like there might be past projects that have not yet been approved but have been built. in that regard, we would identify those and we would consider. now, again, past projects that have already been approved are ones that are reflected in our analysis at the project level. so we are looking at the impact of the project and how it would change existing conditions. then we look at the impact of the project together with other projects. that's the cumulative impact analysis. >> i recognize that my concern here is probably more on the policy level. but as reflected in how san francisco does its
environmental analysis and it seems to me that the way that we're doing this -- and tell me how i'm wrong -- means that over time we're going to lose -- like, if your time frame is long enough, you'll lose your historic district because, you know, the analysis you're doing of reasonably foreseeable projects and recently approved projects doesn't include the 12 projects that have been done over the last 20 years, each of which lost, you know, not that individually important but may perhaps cumulatively important set of buildings and the buildings that -- you know, the projects you don't even know about because nobody has acquired the property or thought to do the project but somebody certainly will over the next 20 years. so over a 30-year horizon, which is what i'm imagining you're not doing during your ceqa analysis, and i don't know that that is
the case here, but there's a risk with the way the department is doing -- the way the city does this in losing districts. >> i think that you raise a really good point, supervisor mandelman, about -- and i do say to your first thought there that this is a policy matter. so with regards to ceqa, the law requires impact analysis and disclosure of impact to decision-makers so they can understand when they're approving a project, what the environmental effects of the project might be and then to take those -- they're mandated to take those into consideration in their approval. so, you know, ceqa is not a preservation tool. it is an information source, and the city does have a future policy -- an ongoing policy discussion about what is the appropriate approach to preservation of historic
resources -- >> the loss of historic resources is an environmental impact even if our policies haven't caught up to -- >> it is. and ceqa establishes what the boundaries are of that impact analysis, and each individual project is subject to ceqa review to look at the impact of that project and that project alone -- along with any cumulative projects, as i've already explained what those are, and then to mitigate, if there is a significant impact, to mitigate for the project's share of the impact. so we're looking at -- you know, if we were to have found a significant impact that can be mitigated, mitigation measures are applied to the project to -- there has to be a nexus between the project impact and the level of mitigation. so if we're talking about overall over time future projects that have not yet come
in the door, we're not able to engage in speculation about what those projects might be or where. that is not the review that we do under ceqa. certainly the development will occur down the road at some point. but the way to, you know, that that will be addressed is down the road. there will be further review and for individual projects, they'll look at those cumulative effects. and, you know, the effect on the district over time would be acknowledged through the ceqa process and decision makers who would be subject to approving the project get to decide if they want to approve the project despite these environmental effects that the project might have. >> but over a long time frame, the way we do the ceqa analysis of contributing resources to an historic district would mean we would -- that there would be -- there could be an environmental impact that we're not capturing through our analysis?
>> because of the way ceqa is structured. it doesn't take into account about projects that are yet to occur. >> anything else, supervisor? >> yes. i want to clarify one point. >> supervisor stefani. i don't know if it's vander slii si. >> i was going to say we have look at all the projects in the district since the district was identified in 2006, just to say that there's been no demolition of contributors within the district until this project and that only one other project was found to be incompatible with the district. so that was a review that we did do as part of our analysis. >> supervisor stefani. >> actually, nothing further at this time.
>> supervisor peskin? you're muted. >> thank you, president yee. thank you, supervisor stefani, and thank you supervisor mandelman for your comments. i just want to read from the brief short title of this. "this is the demolition of a three-storey single-family residence, and the construction of a new three-storey single-family residence." this is happening during a time when the world as we know it, because we are wasting a whole lot of resources, which is a ceqa issue. the world, as we know it, has been stressed to the limits. so, yeah, we're talking about the nuances of ceqa and historic preservation. but in reality, really, folks,
why do you have to demolish a three-storey home and replace it with another three-storey home and get rid of a whole bunch of natural resources? if you want to be environmentally sound, if you don't want to have red and black clouds above our house, why do you even need to do this project? that's what ceqa should do. not whether you look back ten years or you're looking forward four years. this is just a waste of natural resources for a bunch of rich people. >> okay. i don't see anybody else on the roster. why don't i have these -- sponsor? no. yeah, the sponsor, a presentation. you have ten minutes.
>> can you hear me? >> i hear robots. >> there's something wrong with your sound. >> are you able to hear me now? >> can you turn off your microphone, turn off your camera feed, give it a rest, and then come back and just five seconds. >> hi. is that better now? >> that's better. >> thank you. i noticed that there was a bad internet connection. could you also -- thank you. thank you, mr. president, supervisors. i'm tom tunney and our office is counsel to the project sponsor and owner of 178 seacliff avenue. i'm going to show you a few renderings of the project and
describe the project and the design process and our preservation expert will address the historic resource issues. staff gave a very thorough report, presentation. so forgive me if some of this is a little bit repetitive. but we'd like to hit a few additional points. the project's imaginative design is contemporary yet understated and still expressing the traditional elements of seacliff. one of the primary features of the project is a new and unique pedestrian view corridor to the bay and the marin headlands along of each side of the home. [indiscernible] following the planning's commission approval of the project with no changes and a discretionary review hearing on june 11th. the approval motion was made by commissioner catherine ward who credited staff's "thorough analysis." the president feels -- excuse
me. in creating the home's design [indiscernible] painstakingly surveyed the entire seacliff neighborhood. the neighborhood's period of architectural significance is 1913 to 1935. while the neighborhood contains approximately 300 houses, the team identified 74 homes built during the decades after the period of significance. these homes show a wide array of architectural styles, shapes, and sizes. the project was reviewed and approved by the planning department's residential design advisory team or pardat. pardat comments were in the design. the project weigh re-re viewed by pardat which confirmed again the proposed design complies with the residential design guidelines. specifically they found, and i quote -- these are taken from the staff report to the planning
commission: "1. the siting of the building is consistent with the front and side and rear setbacks of the surrounding buildings and is co-compliant. the three-storey massing at the street is consistent with other buildings on this block. the building massing and siting at the rear maintains light and visual access to the common open space from adjacent properties. and 4, the application of residential design guidelines is intended to result in designs that are compatible with the patterns of existing context, not to necessarily imitate or recreate previous historical styles. as such, the massing composition materials, proportions, and details are a modern and compatible fit with the other buildings in the surroundings. with that, i'll turn to our preservation expert, christina dykas. thank you. >> good evening, members of the
board of supervisors. my name is christina dykas and i'm a senior architectural historian. we prepared the evaluation for 178 seacliff avenue in 2017, which was used as a basis for the planning department ceqa determination. as alison and the planning department explained, the property was not found to be individually eligible for listing in the california register. the property was found to be a contributor to the previously identified california register-eligible ceqa historic district. its earlier construction date of 1914 within the seacliff neighborhood does not make it more important of a contributor to the historic district compared to contributing buildings constructed later in the period of significance since the district is recognized for its overall residence park design. the appellant argued that an eir is required for this project. under ceqa an eir is required if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment. since the existing house was not found individually eligible but was found to be a contributor to the historic district, in this case the district is the historic resource. the threshold for impact under ceqa is that a project would cause a substantial adverse change to the historic district. in other words, the project would need to render the entire historic district no longer eligible for listing in the california register. there are approximately 300 individual properties within the district. the boundaries of which are defined on the city's property information map. based on the identified period of significance in 1913 to 1935, there are approximately 235 properties within the boundaries that were built during that time period and are considered potential district contributors. the location, landscape setbacks as well as landscaped medians also contribute to the character of the district. visual inspection of the residences throughout the
district suggest that the majority of age-eligible buildings as well as the district's design landscape retain good overall integrity and continue to display -- during the first half of the 20th century. considering the number of buildings constructed during the period of significance within the district, the loss of this contributing building will not contribute to a cumulative impact. lastly, regarding the new construction, to be eligible the historic district must possess historic significance and retain integrity. there are seven aspects of historic integrity outlined by the national park service and only one aspect, integrity of setting, would be affected in this section of the historic district by this newly constructed modern-style building. the other contributors and site characteristics in the district would not be physically altered. the overall integrity of the historic district will remain intact and will still be able to convey its historic significance and therefore there's no likelihood of meeting the
threshold for significant impact on the historic district. in summary, page & turnbull supports the conclusions in their historic resource response. thank you. >> okay. any questions? >> i do have a few questions. >> okay. supervisor stefani. >> so as part of your evaluation of the proposed project, you did an analysis of the buildings at seacliff and this is something that i looked at because the building is different, the architecture is different, from the one to the left and the one to the right and many others. so what were your findings about architectural styles that are actually present in the district right now, in the
seacliff-eligible historic district, and would a building like this somehow make it -- hurt the chances for seacliff to be an historic district? >> there are a number of architectural styles in the district, both that were built within the period of significance, as alison had mentioned earlier, various revival styles, mediterranean revival, craftsman and other styles. there are some non-contributing buildings within the district which would post-date that 1913 to 1935 period and are mid-century modern styles. i believe there's like a joseph escher and other styles in the
district. you're looking at the overall integrity of contributors and non-contributors and the ability of the district to convey the era. if one went out to that district, there are so many contributing -- buildings of that period, 1913 to 1935, that even the demolition and replacement of this property would with a modern style buildg which was acknowledged to not be compatible in design, would still not render this overall district unable to convey its period of significance and its reason for significance. >> okay. and so the building there at 178 seacliff right now, the building itself, you have determined that it is not in and of itself historic.
how was that determination made, and is it your opinion that that decision in and of itself would require further environmental review? and if so, can someone please point me to a case that would render that so? >> this may be a question for the planning department since they made the final determination, but they did base their findings on page & turnbull's historic resource evaluation. and i think you may be asking about the individual eligibility. again, the property was not found to be individually eligible for listing because it was a number of buildings to be constructed within the overall development of this subdivision, of this neighborhood. it doesn't rise to a higher level of significance than
others constructed at that time. so it wasn't found to be eligible under a significant event. it also was not found to be individually significant for its architecture as it is a quite modest design of a hybrid craftsman style arts & crafts -- i forget what the last architectural style was. if you look at the building, there's very little of architectural decoration. there are a few metal grilles or balancbalconettes on the front. because it was built within the period of significance for the historic district and retains general integrity, had not much been altered in the past, that's why it was found to be a
contributor to the historic district. >> thank you for that. i will let supervisor peskin go, and then if i have any additional questions, i will let you know. thank you, president yee. >> before supervisor peskin is on, supervisor mandelman is next. >> i just have a quick question which is sort of along the lines of what i was asking the planning department. but do you have thoughts on -- i mean, admittedly this is one building out of 200 and something. but assume there's a building boom in seacliff and 40 of the contributing buildings in seacliff over the next 20 years were to be rebuilt as modern buildings, would that impact the historic resource? >> there could be eventually an
impact to the historic resource, the district. each project would be evaluated in the same way that this one was, and at each project that comes forward, there would be an analysis of whether the overall district continues to be able to convey its significance from that period. if you can go to seacliff and say, this looks like a district that was established and primarily developed between 1913 and 1935, then it's able to retain enough integrity to convey its significance. it's a project-by-project basis to make that call. >> there's no -- i assume there's no standard, though, about which building is the one that puts you over, whether it's 10% or 80%?
>> there isn't -- historic preservation is a qualitative analysis. i know that's frustrating to some who would like to see numbers. but we do discuss integrity and thresholds of integrity. integrity is defined by the national park service and has seven aspects that we consider which have to do with location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association. so we do have standards for considering whether the historic district is affected enough by an erosion of contributors, that those aspects of integrity can no longer be said to be maintained. >> and you've seen that in the district, where a contributor, the loss of a contributor, even though there are many other contributors, is the -- you get
the threshold and that does impact -- >> yes. >> all right. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, president yee. miss gibson -- and i appreciate supervisor mandelman's line of questioning. but what you told us earlier is that ceqa, and what is before us as ceqa, is really fundamentally a function of the baseline. and it is not backwards-looking. it is only looking at what happens today and going forward. so i think you've already admitted -- and this is not your fault or my fault or supervisor stefani's fault, but the way ceqa is applied is fundamentally forward looking and not backward looking. so you can actually remove the 40 contributory buildings that
supervisor mandelman is talking about over the last five years or ten years, and you continue to look at the baseline, and so the 280 -- 240, whatever the numbers are. but here's the fundamental question: miss gibson or ms. vander sleis, is this building an historic resource, yes or no? >> the question is whether the building is an historic resource. the building is a contributor -- the property is a contributor to an eligible -- potential eligible historic district. as such, it is a component of an historic resource. it is one component of an historic resource. so when we identify in our property information mass
historic resources, we do flag the property as a part of an eligible historic district. that's our general approach for identifying properties that are in districts. so we take a look at the property as a contributor and that is both with regard to a demolition or alteration of the contributor, as well as new construction. we consider the effects of both on the district. >> miss gibson, that is not the yes or no question i asked you. is it an historic resource, yes or no? >> you know, i understand that we would love to have very straightforward answers to all of the questions that are pertinent -- >> is this a contributor to an historic district an historic resource, is the question. >> i've answered the question,
really. i don't have any other way of saying it, supervisor peskin. i'm not trying to be difficult. i'm answering the question the best -- >> through the president, i'm not trying to be argumentative, but the answer is yes. if it contributes, it contributes and it is an historic resource. and we're getting into some nuances and i really don't care about this because it's kind of rich-on-rich violence. but at the end of the day, we should actually be looking at this through the lens not of history but just the waste of natural resource, of tearing down a building and putting it in the landfill in the middle of a moment in time where our societal prerogative is to actually maintain our resources. shouldn't ceqa look at that? wouldn't that be helpful?
>> so let's move on. thank you, supervisor peskin. and i think what we're in the middle of is halfway between policy discussion and trying to define certain things and at some point all of us are going to have to make a decision where we sit with this. so i'm going to move on to, let me see -- who spoke last? the developer. so i guess this is public comments. >> right. >> in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal. you have two minutes. i don't know if there's anybody lined up for this. so madam clerk, can you find out? >> yes, mr. president. i also just want to provide the telephone number for folks who are joining late, meeting i.d. number is (146)360-9063.
president #twice. when the system tells you you are unmuted, please go ahead and start speaking. operations, do we have any callers on the line, please? >> yes. i have two callers on line. i will unmute the first caller. >> thank you. >> (caller): i support the project. that is all. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, please? >> (caller): i am a constituent of san francisco and i want to say [indiscernible] this approval process is absolutely horrible and that this project and this contemplation of whether or not it fits the neighborhood's character is
unbecoming of the city and the result is that our neighborhood character is one filled with homeless people, people without homes, there's an incredible wealth disparity. so as we contemplate whether or not -- i might ask whether or not we might contemplate the homeless people in the street and the lack of housing for our disadvantaged and decide that this process is in none of our interests, it's not in your interest to sit here and listen to hours and hours of public comment and discussion on every property that gets built. we all collectively, all maybe except for the lawyers, have something better to be doing with our nights. so thank you very much and please, please make this process easier. >> all right. thank you for your comments.
operations, please confirm that that was the last speaker. >> we have one additional caller. >> oh, great. okay. please unmute the caller. welcome, caller. you'll have up to two minutes. >> (caller)welcome, caller. >> (caller): hi. this is the relay operator 7336 and your caller has actually said, i believe that through the president the rich zionist jews are paying off supervisor peskin and he needs to take -- laced with -- >> just disconnect that caller, please. there is no tolerance for any harassment, any conversation. you have limited rights here to make your public comment. we welcome all the callers to comment on the items
specifically, but the brown act does not protect that type of speech. mr. president? >> so that was the last one? >> yes. >> thank you. thank you for the comments and i will close public comment now. so lastly i will invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you have up to two minutes. >> thank you so much, president yee, members of the board of supervisors. thank you for your very thoughtful comments and questions. i wanted to respond to two points of a ceqa nature and then i'll turn it over to frederick, to mr. knapp again to make a couple of points related to the historic resource. so the question was asked whether this building is an historic resource, yes or no. it is. it's a contributor to an historic district. all we're asking for with this appeal is that the city follow its rules that it's always followed and that it base a
determination on the fact that there is an intact historic district. i'll let mr. knapp speak to the unique aspects of this area. whether or not the building itself is individually eligible, it is related to other buildings that were part of the first tract that established this district, and that's important because there are cases that support that there is a fair argument based on substantial evidence to indicate that there would be a potential significant impact to an historic resource because of the potential impact to the adjacent building. and i'll let mr. knapp speak to that because he's personally looked at those buildings and can comment on that. >> thank you. well, as was just said, this is one of the oldest buildings, it's part of a cluster where the district started, and there was a comment that older buildings
in a district aren't more important than ne newer buildin, but that brings us back to one of the fundamental flaws of this exemption which is the district has not been adequately documented. when you do a context statement, it allows you to understand which building is very important and which one isn't. and we don't have that here. and the other thing i'd like to say is just the planning code is a completely different issue from historical issues. there are houses built after 1935. they aren't relevant to understanding what is compatible with this district. thank you very much. >> okay. so that concludes the public hearing. it's been held and filed.
supervisor stefani, what would you -- do you have any more comments? >> well, yes. i just want to make a motion and explain my reason for doing so. thank you, president yee, and thank you to everyone who came out for this hearing today. you know, in thinking about this, and i always say this and i mean it. you know, we sit here in a quasi judicial fashion and we adjudicate law, and it is extremely important to me as a lawyer that i get it right. and, you know, i always remember one of my law professors who, you know, law is reason. it doesn't matter what i feel what's going on here in terms of who is doing what. what is the ceqa law that determines the decision that i
put forward. as i said, it is extremely important for me to get it right. i came in here today with a different understanding. i have great respect for supervisor peskin. i have known him since 2007, and i have seen him in ceqa appeals, i have asked his advice on ceqa, and i am now feeling a little different and would like to look further into my understanding of the house itself, whether or not that being a potential historic resource needs further analysis. you know, i always say, and i said this to a group of students the other day, if you walk into a room thinking you have all the answers and you know everything, you're doing something wrong. and i'm not -- i'm not prepared to make a decision when i have, again, reasonable doubt now because of something that supervisor peskin has raised.
i don't feel like i have adequate answers to to make a decision. and i just want to say as well, i respect every single one of my constituents and i owe it to them to get it right, and i owe it to them, whether or not they're rich, middle class, living paycheck to paycheck, i do not care. i represent every single one of them. and at the end of this hearing, i do not feel solid in how i felt walking in. and that's okay. so what i'm going to do is ask and move that we file the hearing and that we continue items 73 to 75 for one week so i have a chance to come back here and say: i'm solid. i know what i think about the law. i've answered the questions that supervisor peskin has posed. and i feel confident in making the decision.
so, colleagues, i would like one week to further investigate some of the issues that were brought up by supervisor peskin, and i would appreciate your support on that. >> is there a motion -- >> second. second, mr. president. >> and seconded by supervisor peskin to continue items 73, 74, 75 to our next meeting september -- >> 22nd. >> -- 22nd. okay. roll call on the motion? >> on the motion to continue these three items, 73, 74, and 75 to september 22nd. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> stephanie. >> aye. >> supervisor walton. >> aye.
>> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor fewer. >> aye. >> supervisor hainey. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. motion to continue passes. madam clerk, let's go to our committee reports. >> item 76 through 78. i'll ask to just close her camera feed. thank you. item 76 through 78 were considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on monday, september 14th and were forwarded as committee reports. item 76 is an ordinance to amend the planning code to allow restaurants in the beach district to con -- to form a ceqa determination and make the appropriate findings.
>> so we are taking a roll call on items number 76. >> on item 76, supervisor peskin? >> i had my hand up but i'll -- [speaking simultaneously] >> it's okay. it's getting late. aye. >> peskin aye. supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor ronan? >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor fewer. >> aye. >> supervisor haney? >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> there are eleven ayes.
>> so the ordinance is passed on first reading. apologize, supervisor peskin. >> it's okay. >> let's go to number 77. >> item 77 is an ordinance to amend the existing building code to extended date for completion of work for the seismic retrofitting of tier 4 wood frame buildings to septembe september 15th. >> madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. >> on item 77, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> supervisor walton? >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye.
>> supervisor fewer? >> aye. >> supervisor haney. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor mar? >> aye. >> there are eleven ayes. >> it passes on first reading. let's go to item 78. >> item 78 was recommended as amended with the same title. it's an ordinance to rezone certain parcels in industrial use districts to other uses -- and other use districts to affirm the ceqa determination and to make the appropriate finding. >> madam clerk, please call the roll. >> on item 78, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye.
>> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor fewer. >> aye. >> supervisor haney. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> there are eleven ayes. >> so the ordinance is passed on first reading. madam clerk, let's go to the roll call. >> introduce new business is supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam clerk. mr. president and colleagues, i want to start by thanking mayor breed for her action this morning and we heard her comments earlier in this meeting many hours ago with regard to urging the governor's office to extend the commercial eviction
moratorium beyond the current september 30th expiration date. and i'm really proud of the work that we've all done together so far to advocate at every stage during the pandemic for the strongest protections both for residential and commercial tenants from our earliest eviction moratoriums, thank you supervisor preston, through our most recent collective push for the protections that started out under assembly bill 1436, sponsored by assembly member chiu, that resulted in the passage and signature by the governor of assembly bill 3088. while san francisco's response to the pandemic has been a success in many ways, i think we also know that our success has come with extraordinary impacts to workers, to entire
industries, and to everybody who's struggling as we shelter in place and hopefully in peace. the next phase of our recovery will be measured by our ability to keep people housed, to help small businesses and our neighborhood commercial corridors stay alive and intact and thrive going forward. and that includes the real work being done by public interest lawyers and tenant advocates, both on the commercial and residential side, to inform those tenants as well as property owners of their rights and obligations. as i referenced earlier in recent weeks, supervisor preston and i have been in close communication with the mayor's office and the city attorney's office to understand the extent of our local authority to act, particularly around commercial evictions, and while i don't want to get out in front of supervisor preston, i'm proud to
be the sponsor and co-sponsor of next phase of the residential tenant protections that i learned about earlier this afternoon. and as mayor breed mentioned, i'm also introducing, along with supervisor preston, a resolution to complement the mayor's statement and put san francisco on the record, urging the governor's office to extend the term of commercial eviction protections beyond september 30th as well. and i really want to thank deputy city attorney general as well as lee heppner of my office for their work. following the just remarkably unfortunate news that yet another scandal has plagued the office of the chief medical examiner, which we all saw in the newspaper as one of our city employees got busted in utah, i'm also introducing a hearing
request which follows up on earlier hearings that i had, to receive recommendations from the budget and legislative analyst on a total restructuring of this profoundly important function not only in our city government but in every municipality in the united states of america. about two-thirds of our country has coroners and about a third has medical examiners and i want to really drill down on what the protocols are for the medical examiners and best practices, how they're overseen, how they're staffed, and so let's get to the bottom of that and at the hearing at the government audit and oversight committee, chair mar for that. i co-sponsor
to comply with the annual reporting on city rental vehicle use or city vehicle use, including the costs and safety data, and if the voters will have president yee for the next four years, i would like to follow up on telemetrics after you term out. and finally before i get to my three immemoria, i just want to say together with supervisor stefani, my office submitted a request to the historic preservation commission to craft an historic district work plan that would honour the rich history of the italian-american community in the north beach neighborhood, all the way to fisherman's wharf, which has been the home of arts, workers,
immigrants, from long before that, to the lgbtq movements and other aspects of its history to the current day, and the noted architectural historian, michael corbett, provided the commission with a context statement that outlines many of the cultural assets that have put this neighborhood and the physical assets on the map. and going on that research, my office has been working now since before the pandemic with a great cohort of long-time italian-american leaders in the north beach community about honouring the vibrant culture through the establishment of a cultural district. thank you, supervisor ronen, for
that concept, and today supervisor stefani and i are introducing legislation to begin that process as we do that in conjunction with the italian athletic club, the italian fishing community, as well as the italian restaurants that continue to thrive outside in north beach. actually, i have one more thing, which is i think everybody has seen the coverage about the california homekeep program which has offered hundreds of millions of dollars state-wide to local jurisdictions to convert motels and hotels, including sros, into permanent supportive housing, and the one catch was that we had to draw this money down by the end of this calendar year. and today i am really pleased to sponsor the homekeep grant
application for the graata hotel in my district and i'm really grateful to the department of real estate and community services for the work that we've done together over the last couple of months, and hopefully this will all come to pass. i really want to thank rebecca foster and kate hartley at the housing accelerator fund, josh keane and andreka pennant and the department of supportive housing, and my staff and finally, colleagues, i'll try to take a breath, i would like to adjourn today's meeting in memory of three individuals, yk siu who immigrated to the united states in 1980 and lived a life of perseverance and love. his son nathan was my intern. he was owner of the around the
clock market at the corner of bush and jones in a very tight-knit community, and our condolences to his wife lin and his son nathan. he did remarkable things during the 1989 earthquake, he donated food and water to all of the neighbours in the neighborhood and there's much more to say. i also want to adjourn the board meeting in the memory of my neighbour john stewart, our condolences to augusta, gussie, as she is known. john stewart was the head of the john stewart company that has presided over so much low income housing as well as the development of 88 broadway, which we are about to cut the ribbon on, which is new low income housing in the northeast corner of san francisco.
he had an incredible sense of humor. i will never forget when he brought a cake with a file in my office to give the then head of the housing authority who was in a little bit of trouble and suggested that he take the cake with the file to jail. finally, i would like to adjourn the meeting in the memory of ernestine wise who had an incredible history. i once told her i would name the park for her posthumously, so i'm going to think about that. she passed away at the age of 96. our condolences to her son david, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. and she was preceded in death by
her husband bernard. and the rest i will submit. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston. >> thank you, madam clerk. at the outset i want to thank supervisor peskin for the resolution he described around the commercial rent eviction protections and our office has been working closely together on that and i think we share a goal of trying to maximize the protections we can adopt locally for small businesses. also i want to recognize and thank chinatown and japantown leaders and the small business community that reached out to both of our offices and worked really closely with lee heppner on supervisor's peskin's staff and kyle on my staff. hopefully that's something that will have broad support. i appreciate the mayor's comments at the start of our
meeting today. and i think the really important resolution is to try to get the governor to renew his executive order on commercial evictions so that we can pass ongoing strong protections locally. so several items that i am submitting today. i'll speak to a couple of them. first, colleagues, i am -- and supervisor peskin alluded to this previously in his comments. i'm introducing an ordinance to prohibit no fault evictions through march 31st, 2021. so the underlying premise here is simple, one that i have stated before in the context of other legislation, and that is that no one should lose their home during this pandemic. nationally, the centres for disease control recently noted in their national moratorium on non-payment evictions, and i quote: that evictions threaten to increase the spread of
covid-19 as they force people to move often into close quarters in new shared housing settings with family or friends or a congregate setting such as homeless shelters." and similarly our state legislature recently adopted an explicit finding that stabilizing tenant housing will "help the state address the pandemic, protect public health, and set the stage for recovery." so through mayoral order and by ordinance at this board, san francisco has really stepped up and provided critical protections for renters who have lost income and are unable to pay their rent. and recently the state enacted the bill authored by assembly member david c hiu which provides an additional framework evictions through the rest of
next year. i want to be clear that it deals only with non-payment eviction, and the state very clearly in that state legislation is not trying to preempt, to limit or to alter local legislation for other types of evictions, and in fact the state law makes that clear, that cities remain free to pursue stronger eviction protections for other types of evictions and the legislation that i'm introducing today intends to provide additional protection through a so called no fault eviction which includes things like owner moving, evictions for renovations and capital improvements and demolition. so currently no fault evictions are prohibited by mayor breed's 12th supplemental order which has been renewed and in effect through september. so this order has been renewed on a month-by-month basis by the mayor with our input and input from all stakeholders.
and this is collaboration has provided essential protection for san francisco tenants. i should also note that the california judicial council adopted emergency rule one, which was effective april 6th, and that item properly halted evictions and stabilized housing for distressed californians in furtherance of public health goals. and the judicial council voted on august 14th to extend those protections through september 1. but now those protections have expired, adding to the mounting concern and uncertainty for san francisco tenants about their immediate future and housing stability. the time has come for us to remove the monthly uncertainty that tenants are living under during this pandemic. we know that this crisis is prolonged and that we must continue to take evictions off the table. so this legislation is to extend these protections, not by
another 30 days but instead through march 2021, again replacing our current month-to-month approach which is causing so much anxiety and stress for tenants. this is absolutely essential. we're hearing reports already from tenant counts and eviction attorneys that despite the protections in place, some landlords are taking advantage of the legal ambiguity and uncertainty on the time lines to pressure tenants out of their homes. this ordinance will provide clarity for tenants and landlords that except in cases where there's a threat of violence or health and safety danger, that evictions are prohibited, and that people must be allowed to stay in their homes during this ongoing pandemic. i want to thank assembly member david chiu for being in close contact with my office since the passage of ab 38 on this issue and also not just confirming his support for this measure but
also, as the lead author, his understanding that ab 38 does not preclude or preempt this kind of local anti-eviction legislation and i appreciate his proactive outreach to make that clear. i also want to thank my co-sponsors, supervisors peskin, ronen, hainey, walton, and mandelman for their early and strong support and again my legislative aide for all his work on this ordinance. and the second item i am also introducing a resolution urging the governor to issue a pardon to charles joseph. i want to thank my co-sponsors, supervisorses hainey, ronen, fewer, walton, mandelman, stefani and mar and my staff members for their work on this. i also want to thank the san francisco public defender's
office for their critical work and for really educating us about one of their clients, a really remarkable person who i will talk about now named charles joseph. i also want to thank gala king of interfaith movement for human integrity for organizing charles joseph's pardon campaign as well as and in conjunction with the asian law caucus. colleagues, there are times when other people say things better than we can ourselves, and in that vein, in lieu of a normal introduction, i'm just going to read the comments of the san francisco public defender in a recent letter to the board urging support for this measure and use those as my introductory remarks. this is from public defender raju dated yesterday, september 14th. it should be in your inbox but i'll read it now. dear supervisors i'm writing to
express my strong support for the resolution introduced tomorrow which is urges governor newsom to pardon charles joseph. charles is an extraordinary human being and immigrant rights leader, as well as being a dedicated father who is raising two young girls with his wife shelley. charles joseph has also been a client of the public defender's office since may 2019. however, he is much more than a client. charles has become a leader in so many different ways. he has spoken out against unsafe conditions in immigrant detention facilities, has been a featured speaker in nation-wide panels about mass incarceration, and even conducted a training for public defender staff on the impact of ice detention. he has become a close and trusted friend to many in the office. as a youth, charles was impacted by the deportation of his father, and he ended up walking down the wrong path. at the age of 22, he was sentenced to 13 years in prison
for robbery, though nobody was injured. while inside prison, charles transformed his life. he became actively involved in group therapy, art, and music. he became more spiritual and was a leader in violence prevention programs. charles led discussions and shared his own journey and reflections toward self awareness, rehabilitation, and accountability for his actions. after serving 12 years, he was released from custody, but instead of being released home to his family, he was directly transferred to ice custody and detained for eleven months. on april 14th, a federal judge ordered that charles be released because his underlying health condition created an unconstitution alley dangerous risk of serious illness if he were to contract covid-19. he was reunited with his family in sacramento. however, despite his release from custody, he is still at great risk of being deported
unless he is granted a pardon from governor gavin newsom. he has made continuous contributions to society including working with organizations based in san francisco. charles is a vastly different person than he was when he was convicted of his crime over 13 years ago as a 22-year-old. if he were to be deported, it would be detrimental to his family and would also harm the larger community. i urge you to co-sponsor and vote yes on this resolution and to help send a message to governor newsom that charles should be pardoned. sincerely ... thank you again to our public defender for his advocacy on this, and thank you, colleagues. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor ronen. >> yes, thank you, colleagues. i have an item today, some of which i will speak about. first, i am going to introduce a hearing request together with
supervisors hainey and peskin in response to an article in mission local about rodrigo santos and his continuing work with dbi despite being charged by the fbi and out on $100,000 bail. it's a hearing on consultant access and involvement in the san francisco building permit process, in particular in situations where a consultant has been charged with criminal conduct and we're calling on both the departments of building inspections and public works to report. second, i am introducing a resolution in support of california proposition 21, to keeping families in their homes, which will appear on the november 3rd ballot. it would allow governments to adopt rent controls on all units with the exception of new
construction. san francisco, as you all know, is a city of renters, still a city 65% as of 2018 nearly a quarter of the city's rental units were not subject to rent control and that proportion has only grown with new residential units coming online in the two years since that data was collected. two years ago, the board formally endorsed proposition 10. it was a resolution offered by supervisor peskin to repeal the cost of hawkins rental housing act. it was repealed after corporations spent $60 million on a cynical and misleading ad campaign. a majority of san francisco voters voted in favour. the california secretary of state website reports that the calf apartmencalifornia apartmen has poured millions of dollars into the so-called californian
for housing. we know it is a measured balanced approach to allow cities the flexibility to consider local needs and legislate appropriate protection. i want to thank my co-sponsors, supervisor peskin, of course, our renowned tenant rights advocate and activist who is also our colleague, supervisors hainey, walton, and peskin. i hope you will join me in supporting this resolution. next, i'm introducing a resolution officially recognizing october 4th through october 11th as a national week of event dedicated to honouring the lives of thousands of americans we have lost to covid-19 and commit ourselves to continue taking action to combat this health crisis. right now the u.s. has the highest number of covid-19 cases and deaths in the world with over 6.5 million people infected and deaths exceeding 195,000. as we've seen locally and nationally, infection and death
rates have fallen disproportionately on the black, latinx and others. among those lost to covid, we have seen a large number of health care professionals who put their own lives at risk in an unprecedented battle that continues to be fought daily. as a society, we have always found comfort and solace in the rituals of remembrance. this is essential to our individual and collective ability to truly heal from these losses. the week of remembrance will be a national campaign and will be an opportunity to recognize each human life and story behind the total number of covid-19 casualties. but it will also serve to encourage all san francisco ans to take part in concrete steps. this is a brainchild of our very own cleeve jones, and i want to thank him for his efforts in this reflection of community and
healing and i want to thank raphael mandelman for his co-sponsorship and the rest i will submit. >> thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor safai. >> thank you, madam clerk. i also would like to see if we can ask the president if we can adjourn with the entire board esupport for john stewart. he was such a phenomenal person in terms of his work in affordable housing. as supervisor peskin mentioned, i knew he was going to say something about him and have him being a constituent of his, but someone that i know through my work with mission housing and a number of different non-profit housing developers that i work with, he's somebody that played a phenomenal role, not just in the state of california -- city of san francisco but also the state of california in the work that he has done, impacting so many people's lives.
i've asked the president if we can do that on behalf of the entire board. secondly, colleagues, today i'm introducing legislation that is extremely important and of paramount concern to so many of my constituents. as many of you probably know, earlier this month, one person died and two others were injured in a shooting that took place in the excelsior neighborhood. three victims were found in an area nearby where a car side show had taken place earlier. although i want to be clear police are investigating whether the homicide and the injuries sustained by the two individuals are connected to the car side show that had been reported earlier in the day. the legislation i'm introducing would amend the police and transportation codes to establish a city policy to protect the health and safety of residents by enforcing state laws prohibiting reckless driving and car side shows. specifically this ordinance would make it so that people who
use their vehicles to aid and abet, informing and using their vehicles to help set the perimeter for these events and any reckless way that's involved with these side shows or trick activities will have their cars impounded for no less than 14 days for the first incident, for no less than 15 days for the second incident, and no less than 29 days for the third incident, but the impoundment can last for 30 days, more than 30 days, based on state law. that night in the excelsior over 200 people showed up. a few weeks earlier, it was very similar. prior to that, a few months earlier, there had been on geneva and naples. for those of you who have not seen these before or have experienced them, they truly are causing fear and terror in the homes and in lives of people that live there. and the events that happened in
the excelsior went on for over an hour. police are often outnumbered. and so i want to thank police chief bill scott. he worked with me on this legislation based on some of the experiences he has in other parts of california. again, i'm hopeful that people will get the message that san francisco is not the place for these events to be happening. i want to thank also aliciaia cabrera from the attorney's office along with anne pearson, also to my staff and my co-sponsors, supervisor shamman walton and supervisor peskin. this is not something just plaguing the district 11, the excelsior, but it's also impacting places like the embaradero, third street and evans in bayview, and this is not just one individual doing a doughnut. this is something that has begun
to extremely impact people's lives. weep wanwe want to send a strone that this is not going to happen in san francisco. so everything else, colleagues, the rest i submit, and hopefully we can move this through the process, the legislative process, as quickly as possible. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor stefani. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, as a proud italian-american and the supervisor for giardelli square, i'm proud to join supervisor peskin as the sponsor for the italian-american district. i want to thank the offices for their entirely advocacy as well as our entire italian american community for their partnership. i do want to call out and thank richard armanino and others, the members of the area and so many others for their work on this. san francisco as we know is named after st. francis of
assisi, a preacher whose compassion for service and all living things led him to champion those in extreme poverty. values we still hold dear. the city is built by entrepreneurs and innovators dedicated to make this place a world leader and distinction. it's true today and it was true at our founding. we owe a great deal of gratitude to the italian immigrants and the italian-american community that have built so much of this city. the first italian immigrants arrived in the bay area in the 1840s, around the time of california statehood and incorporation of our city. those who settled built a strong foundation in trades such as fishing, agriculture, food and wine-making and merchantry. among the first generation of italians to settle here was the owner and operator of a confectionery that introduced residents and visitors of the area to italian sweets and, of
course, chocolate. before the pandemic, the square was one of the top economic centres of and tourist destinations in san francisco and i am so thrilled that it will be included in the italian-american cultural district. after the devastation of the 1906 earthquake and fire, the city's italian-american community banded together to rebuild homes, businesses, and streets, particularly around north beach. their resilience led to our rapid recovery. the community, for example, whose 150th birthday i was proud to honour at the board with a resolution earlier this year set up a desk using two barrels and a wooden plank to offer resources and financial assistance to those struggling in the aftermath of the earthquake. the bank had i served immigrants, farmers, women and people of colour grew into what we know as the bank of america. for two centuries san francisco inspired poets, athletes, and specifically mayors as well as the united states' first ever
woman speaker of the house of representatives, nancy pelosi. italian americans in turn have provided artistic, athletic, and political leadership to san francisco and the nation. italian-americans know that so much of our cultural heritage in this city goes back to those early days in north beach, fisherman's wharf, and what's now ghirardelli square. the parade would be celebrating its 152nd anniversary next month. although i was born in san francisco, my parents moved to the central valley when i was 6 weeks old but we came to san francisco all the time, and when we did, we would find ourselves in north beach to see romano and flora. although it is gone, romano is a legendary bartender at the athletic club. also the north beach restaurant and as my uncle and of course caesar's which regretfully is no longer there. when relatives from italy visit, we would make sure to visit
north beach. it was about family, friends, and food, of course. i loved the loud conversations of the adults speaking in italian. the affection that was always exchanged when we arrived. the incredible food we would eat over long dinners and the connection i felt to this very special place called north beach. being italian, i know what it feels like to want to hold onto that. to celebrate that and remember the italians who came before me to the city i love, to help build the city i love. during my time on the board of supervisors, i've been thrilled to lead the creation of the italian-american heritage day and italian-american heritage month. i could not be more excited to bring the italian-american culture district forward with supervisor peskin. i know this is a really difficult time for so many, bu but -- whether it's despair, hope, where there is
darkness/light and sadness -- joy, i know we will bring it to so many members of the italian community for this legislation. i'm looking forward to honouring our italian-american community in this way and so many more ways to come in the future. i'm also introducing a resolution today to condemn the anti-semitic and homophobic attacks that have been directed at senator over the past months. the attacks have been spread by anonymous right-wing conspiracy theorists who use social media platforms to spread misinformation, radicalize their followers and incite violence. the senator estimates the city has received over 10,000 hate-based attacks, including over 1,000 were death threats directed at him or his staff. the attackers have leaked his personal private information making the danger increasingly real and terrifying. the attack on the senator are part of a growing and extremely
dangerous white supremacist movement which increasingly targets immigrants, religious minorities, and the lgbtq community. we know that this kind of online harassment can serve as a red flag to real world violence, as was the case in the 2015 attack on a black church in charleston, south carolina, the 2017 fatal car attack in charlottesville, virginia. the shooting at the tree of life synagogue from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. and the 2019 shooting at the wal-mart in he wil el paso, tex. it has increased since ted cruz, president trump, have used their public platforms to spread misinformation and incite hate. it's so important we stand together to denounce this behaviour.
i don't care what your politics are, whether or not you like the senator or not, this is absolutely unacceptable. facebook, instagram, twitter and youtube are all directly responsible for allowing their users to spread misinformation and engage in relentless harassment and they all need to be held responsible for their inaction. these platforms are complicit in promoting hate speech and violence at a time when we need to be more vigilant than ever. i'm also introducing a resolution regarding the so-called burning man party at ocean beach. we know for the past six months we have been pleading with our fellow citizens to stop the spread of this pandemic and to keep our vulnerable populations and front line workers safe. the decision to shut down schools, major cultural events, and our entire economy was deathly serious. it was a decision we made because we put health and safety above all else and because we know that any recovery will not be complete until we learn how to manage this disease. however, the cost of that decision has been tremendous and we know what it's done to our
small businesses. we know what it's done to people who are unemployed. just a few months ago, unemployment in san francisco was only 2%. it is now over 10%. and over 120,000 people of san francisco have filed for unemployment. parents are shouldering child care and educator responsibilities while still trying to provide for their families. every significant cultural event had to cancel in-person events, including the 50th anniversary celebrations, most of the lunar new year, the st. patrick's day and italian-american heritage days, the cherry blossom festival, and even the real burning man celebrations. these community-driven events are exactly what has made san francisco such an incredible destination and an inspiration to people around the world. we owe our residents an incredible debt of gratitude for taking this pandemic seriously and making these enormous sacrifices. san francisco has had among the best health outcomes of any major city in the united states.
that's why i was extremely disappointed to see that more than 1,000 people gathered on september 5th to attend an organized and promoted beach party featuring more than 10 hours' worth of performances and group exercises in direct violation of our current health orders. the toll of this disease has not fallen equally. our vulnerable communities, communities of colour, and our seniors are more likely to get sick and die from this disease. i, like you, have heard from many residents about how terrified they all are, how they wish people who wear masks and stay physically distant. it is unfair to have them bear the burden of this disease where the actions of a few careless individuals are exacerbating it. -- take any applicable enforcement action for this flagrant violation of health orders. i want to point out that the burning man organization denounced this event done in their name saying one of the
central tenets of burning man is to leave it exactly how you found it which is hard to do if you spread a deadly virus around. san francisco is getting the reputation as a very unfair place. if it's going to enforce orders against small business we cannot turn a blind eye to this event and i hope that by doing so other people will refrain from holding such events in the near future. i hope you will join me in seeking accountability for those who have threatened to undo our months of progress in fighting covid-19. sorry for the length of this, but i do have to in memorians. catherine held an enduring love for her hometown. she attended high school at convent of the sacred heart and graduated in english and french literature. catherine moved to washington,
d.c. to work at the united states tax court. this positional loud her to tram the country and sent her on a path towards a career as a lawyer. it also brought catherine back to san francisco to attend uc hastings. where she spent over two decades specializing in insurance coverage and business litigation. during her time as a lawyer, catherine also worked with the california department of insurance, assisting with the drafting of policy language, she had trial and appellate experience and was an active member of the san francisco and california bar associations. throughout her life in san francisco, catherine was an enthusiastic supporter of the community and city she was raised in. catherine served on the city's commission on the status of women and was a board member for cathy lick charitiecatholic cha. she invested an incredible amount of time and resources in supporting the city she loved, including acting as a mentor to
many young women in san francisco. true, deep, and ever lasting friendship, describing catherine as the thelma to her louise, the monica to her rachel, and a friendship that was based on support, unconditional love, and living in the moment. i'm so sorry for the grief for her friends and family had going through. at the young age of 54, catherine was taken from us far too soon. she is survived by her mother, three loving nieces and countless friends who will all miss her terribly. catherine was an incredible voice, fighting for those who have been wronged and was dedicated to a better san francisco. we will miss her advocacy, incredible spirit and loving ways. finally, colleagues, i would like to adjourn today's meeting in honour of miss ann getty.
she was born on march 11th, 1941, to parents who farmed peaches and walnuts in the central valley. anyone who was lucky to know her knew she had a drive for life and for her work. she attributed this drive to her parents' work ethic and she never forgot where she came from. as a child, miss getty dreamt of becoming a scientist or explorer. she left the central valley to attend uc berkeley where she studied biology and anthropology while working time at a cosmetics counter in san francisco. from there, miss getty met her future husband gordon. the year they met, they eloped to las vegas and were married on christmas day. shortly afterwards, in 1973, the couple moved to pacific heights where miss getty resided until she passed away. there she founded a preschool and for decades raised money for a wide range of non-profits and organizations dedicated to san francisco, including ucsf,
the symphony, children's hospitals, the conservatory of music, the opera, and more. as recently as this march, at the outset of the pandemic, miss getty and her husband donated $1 million to the covid-19 response and recovery fund. of course, i would be remiss not to mention miss getty's interior design practice between her philanthropy and family events across the globe, miss getty found time to develop a distinctive design sense and maintain her own client list. although miss getty travelled the world with her family, she was a san franciscoan through and through. she is survived by her husband gordon, sons john, peter, and his wife shannon, and william and his wife vanessa, and grandchildren ivory, nicholas,
alexander, veronica, ava and dexter. she was predisease predeceased n andrew. she will be sorely missed. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor walton. >> thank you, madam clerk. i do have one resolution to introduce, along with my co-sponsors, supervisors peskin, preston, ronen, and yee, declaring this month september 2020 as hunger action month in san francisco. in california nearly one in every four households struggle with hunger and low income communities and communities of colour are either more likely to experience food insecurity. the covid-19 pandemic has only made this problem worse. a huge number of folks are out
of work, or working vastly reduced hours, making it that much harder to put food on the table for themselves and their families. san francisco has a responsibility to its communities to combat hunger in every part of our city and to provide additional resources so those san franciscoans can have and need. hunger and food insecurity are not inevitable. we as a city, as a state, and as a country do have the resources to end hunger. it's time we put those prioritized resources to make sure no one ever has to worry about where their next meal is coming from. the month of september has been designated nation-wide as hunger action month in order to bring attention to food insecurity in our communities and to engage the public in action, including
volunteership, social media shares and donations so we can end hunger together. we are fortunate to have so many great partners in the fight against hunger here in san francisco. like the south africans marin food bank who will be hosting events throughout this month to bring awareness to and help end the increasing hunger crisis in our communities. i'm excited to work with our partners on both solutions to end hunger for good throughout this month of september and also the months and years to follow. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor walton. supervisor yee. >> yes, thank you, madam clerk. first of all, i want to honour
supervisor safai's request to close our meeting in memory of john stewart on behalf of the entire board. and, colleagues, today i'm going to be introducing, along with supervisor peskin, legislation to tighten up the city's policies on our vehicle fleet. in a recent report, we requested of the budget and legislative analyst of a number of issues that required better systems. first, spending behaviour. we learned that departments were renting and leasing vehicles outside our city fleet. these rentals bypass our typical budgetary process before the board in a time when we are pinching pennies, we need to be
looking at whether or not vehicle rentals are justifiable. we should really distinguish between what is actually necessary and what is simply wasteful. secondly, and more importantly, we evaluated the city's vehicle telematic systems. telematic, otherwise known as black boxes, were installed in most of our city's fleet when we passed our original legislation in 2015. the technology helps us better understand fuel efficiency, better route management, effective deployment and moreover health and safety. since then there has been proof that they have helped in cost savings with fuel efficiency and reducing idling, which are important, especially during the climate crisis. however, as what was concluded by the bla report and the
subsequent news story, the data is only as good as what you do with it. not every department is utilizing the data generator from the telematics to help with curbing excessive speed and improving driving behaviour. there were 2,619 vehicles that have at least one speeding incident of more than 10 miles per hour above the speed limit during the study. many of these incidents were in san francisco, not on highways or freeways. of those, 16% of all speeding incidents were greater -- were actually greater than the 10 miles per hour -- not only 1n hour, but 16% of these vehicles that were speeding were speeding
between 20 and almost 29 miles an hour above the speed limit that was posted. this is what i would consider deadly. adopt vision zero as a strategy to end fatalities by 2024, and we are falling short and behind. if anything, drivers have become more reckless during this health emergency, as the streets are emptier than usual. these past few weeks have been horrific. a young child was hit while on their scooter. with everything happening around us, the last thing we need is to fear being hit by a car while taking advantage of the little respite we have from the pandemic. similarly there are settlements paid when city vehicles are involved in collisions.
so how many of these could have been prevented. we are asking departments to do more and be accountable. they will require more stringent reporting from departments on vehicle use and to provide the board of supervisors information including but not limited to rentals, take-home vehicles, speeding, and fuel efficiency. we are asking departments to develop corrective action plans to help with educating drivers, our city drivers, not just any drivers, our city drivers and providing resources so that we can do better on our roads. training drivers to slow down, to be more vigilant on the streets. this is what we want. beyond this ordinance, i want to send a very clear message that vision zero has to start with all of us. when we are on the roads, whether for official city business or as private residents, we need to take
safety seriously. speed kills. and the number of incidents with city vehicles involved is not only embarrassing but unacceptable. i know we can do better. i don't want to play the blame game here. i know our department and city workers are carrying out critical work every day to serve our residents and supporting our infrastructure. sometimes to improve, we need to [indiscernible] here and that's what this legislation does. it provides a framework and a feedback loop so that we can continue evaluating what's working and hopefully shift our culture to be safer. overall, this legislation could save lives and help us save up to $10 million annually in what could be wasteful inefficiencies of our fleet.
i also hope this allows us to ground ourselves when we pass vision zero. i want to thank city administrator naomi kelly and her dedicated staff at fleet management for their work in successfully implementing the telematics program and collaborating with us on this ordinance. i also want to commend the bla staff, fred osher and julian metcalf for their fabulous work on this report. they even created an online dashboard so that you can go online if you want to check out the data they've collected. lastly -- not lastly, but i also want to thank our advocates that woke us up and the sf bike coalition for their ongoing fight to save lives in advancing
our vision zero work. and lastly, i'll do this again, i want to really thank two of my staff, erica -- well, erica who is right now on leave and probably will not be back before my term and as some of you know, most of you know, she is taking care of our little girl who was born recently. she worked on this issue for over two years, and i really have to hand it to her. she was dogged in trying to get all this stuff done, and got us to this point where i was able to introduce this legislation. i want to thank -- who took over erica's effort and for her to actually work with all the departments involved. >> thank you, mr. president.
supervisor fewer. >> yes, thanks, madam clerk. i'd like to be added, if i may, to the in memorium for mrs. getty, as she was a friend. the rest i submit. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor fewer. supervisor haney. >> thank you, madam clerk. i have two related items and i want to make a comment what supervisor ronen and peskin introduced. i'm introducing two items that are both related to increased emergency protections for grocery store, drugstore, restaurant, and on demand delivery workers. colleagues, as you recall, we had an emergency ordinance and these emergency ordinance require to reintroduce them for reenactment. this particular emergency ordinance first took effect on may 1st and we've renewed it
once before and we'll be renewing it again. the legislation strengthens worker protections that are covered by the health officer's orders during covid-19 by getting an additional level of protection and a mechanism to file a complaint with the office of labour standards and enforcement. it requires employers to provide workers with personal protective equipment, requires on demand delivery service employees to be paid for time spent cleaning vehicles or driving to hand-washing facilities. it requires employers to approve an employee's request to change a work schedule. and it prevents retaliation. we have heard from many workers, delivery workers, grocery store workers about the various ways in which some companies have been trying to get around this legislation, have been continuing to charge workers for protective equipment, and so we are calling a hearing bringing the office of labor standards
and enforcement to present on the complaints that they have received thus far on this emergency ordinance and asking olse to present data and facts regarding the complaints they've received, noting violations of workers protections, to make sure of the complaints, facts surrounding the complaints and companies that are in non-compliance or ignoring the safety of their workers, and whether or not the non-compliant companies continue to be bad actors even after repeated citations. this obviously is a very important issue that is going to be decided in part on the ballot in november and it's critical that we enforce labor laws that we passed here and uphold standards for all workers in our city, i'm include on demand delivery workers. lastly, i just wanted to make a comment about the hearing that we've introduced together with supervisor ronen and supervisor peskin. we, as we've discussed a number
of times in the past, have had very serious, not just allegations but indictments related to corruption in our city, and it's critical that we have full transparency and accountability and also make sure that our own practices and laws are as strong as possible, both to prevent this type of activity. in this case, there was an individual who is now indicted for stealing from literally hundreds of people, residents in our city, in some cases small home owners, small property owners, and that individual, as has been revealed, is still able to pull permits for the very behaviour that he has been indicted for. what this brings to light is the fact that we may not be strong enough in our -- in preventing this type of theft and
corruption within our city and that i think the department of building inspection in particular has some answering to do about their own practices to prevent it, both in the past and currently, as it relates to this individual and to others. so along with supervisor peskin and ronen and i'm sure chair mar, we'll be looking at the practices of dbi and making sure that we're preventing people from being taken advantage of or theft and strengthening our own policies as it relates to building and construction and potential corruption. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, i have a hearing request today and two in
memoria. first the hearing requests. we have yet to crush covid-19, but covid-19 is unquestionably crushing our economy. so many people across the city and across the world, tenants and landlords, workers and employers, are struggling. and storefronts across san francisco have shuttered with new closures being announced every day. times like these call on us to come together, to recognize that we're all connected, and to do what we can to help each other get through. many have heard that call and responded in kind. many landlords, for example, have recognized that their small business tenants simply cannot meet their rent obligations and have agreed to defer and decrease rent. but some landlords, and i believe this is a minority, have not. today i am requesting a hearing on the role of this minority as unreasonable and seemingly irrational landlords in exacerbating the city's retail vacancy crisis in the time of
covid. as has been discussed some already today in san francisco we have enacted a temporary moratorium on evictions for commercial tenants, as allowed by the state, and i want to thank mayor breed and supervisor peskin for your advocacy around extending that moratorium. extending that moratorium is all the more important because the state has at least so far failed to take any meaningful action to protect small businesses once that moratorium ends. and as you are all aware, state laws preclude state cities and counties from enacting local and commercial rent protections for small businesses. so here's an example from district 8. a property on market street in the castro owned by golden pacific properties llc and managed by mr. steven wong has refused multiple requests from his four retail tenants to negotiate a rent abatement despite the global health and economic crisis. those tenants are delightful mix
of neighborhood retail stores, the kind that visitors to the castro have sought out for decades. in fact, prior to the pandemic, those four stores were a stretch of healthy, thriving, vibrant retail in a neighborhood that was increasingly plagued by vacant storefronts. these queer women and black-owned businesses reflect the best of the neighborhood and are exactly the sort of businesses and business owners that property owners should be doing everything they can to retain. unfortunately, mr. wong sees things differently. in response to multiple calls and emails from my office, he finally emailed back that he was not sure what there is to discuss and that he found the tenants' requests to negotiate just too extreme. mr. wong is willing to put his tenants on a payment plan, but they must come current and there will be no rent reduction. that, wrote mr. wong, would not be very fair to me and would prevent him from, and i quote,
"renting to people who are willing and able to pay." in what universe, mr. wong? because that's not san francisco this year, right now, in the middle of a pandemic. when we're considering supervisor peskin's commercial vacancy tax, we heard the argument from opponents the tax was unnecessary because no rational property owner wants a vacant storefront and no rational property owner would behave in a way that would maintain a vacancy. for those who made that argument, i offer as exhibit a golden pacific properties and mr. steven wong. at this hearing, i will invite small businesses, merchant associations and industry groups, to share their experiences with the minority of landlords who contrary to their apparent self interests have refused to negotiate rent relief for their tenants. i will be asking city agencies to present (inaudible) available to small businesses in this situation and this hearing will
provide an opportunity for this body to consider the tools we do have available locally to hold these bad actors to account, including next steps on the vacancy tax. and it will allow us to explore potential changes in state law that we could advocate for and could help protect our small businesses from that subset of unreasonable, irrational landlords whose bad business decisions are doing such great harm to our neighborhood retail environment. and now for the in memoriam. i'm asking that we adjourn today's meeting in memory of matthew simmonds, known business his drag name peggy. he was a beloved member of the san francisco drag community and worked as a navigator with the shantu project. he was born in queens in 1960. he and his family moved a number of times around north america and europe during his childhood. he got his start performing as a
teenager when he toured with up with people, a non-profit that used a five-month performance arts program to teach young adults how to interact in a multicultural environment. he moved to the bay area and during the 19e 1980s and 1990s. he worked as a body electric school in massage and spiritual therapist. his work with people dying of a.i.d.s. was particularly meaningful for him and was the basis for his first performance piece, midwife to the dying. when matthew moved to toronto briefly in the late 1990s, peggy legs was born, making her debut at a diana ross contest where she won first place. her first san francisco performance was in 1998. over the next two decades, peggy would become a staple of san francisco drag and theatre, performing in 33 viva variety
shows, many drag charity shows including absolutely fabulous and gary poofter and pepper spray. she performed in the witches of east village. outside of drag, matthew continues his lifetime of work where he was a peer navigator in 2010. after his death he issued a statement that matthew touched so many lives and his love and dedication to his clients were remarkable. he went above and beyond honouring the lives of his clients and we will do the same for him. he brought joy and healing to many people over his decades as a performer and health care practitioner. his death has had shows sharing touching messages. he guided friends and strangers alike through a trying time with love and compassion.
san francisco will miss both matthew and peggy legs very, very much. may his memory be a blessing. i'm also asking that we adjourn today's meeting in memory of denise cian who passed away at her home at the age of 86. denise was born in 1933 in new york city. she spent her childhood on the east side of manhattan in an italian immigrant community where her mother, who was a chef, passed on to her a love of fine food. denise was an early pioneer in transgender rights. denise made her way to san francisco in 1970. here she joined what was then the department of social services and served as a shop steward of local 400, editor of the local newspaper and member of the executive board. she would remain a committed labour activist for the rest of her life. denise helped to create new by-laws which banned discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation, and was at the forefront of the fight for pay equity. denise's commitment to advancing social justice recognized the connectiveness of different struggles and over the decades she put herself on the front lines of many movements. a fierce champion for women's right, she was a long time member of the national organization for women and served on the democratic women's forum. she pushed for the creation of the commission on the status of women in 1975 and established the women's building and the women's credit union. she fought for environmental justice and sustainability, serving as president of the san francisco community recyclers and hosting a local radio program where she was fondly known as the green lady. denise helped draft the 1997 sustainability plan for the city and county of san francisco and was recognized throughout her life for her many contributions to environmental initiatives, including the city's recycling program. at many a community meeting, i saw this happen, she lectured
people who handed out materials that weren't printed on both sides. denise volumed her time in leadership roles with numerous groups including san francisco tomorrow, sustainable san francisco, and the san francisco labor council. she ran for supervisor in 1998 and in 2002 ran for the district 6 seat. i got to know denise as a member of the harvey milk club and in 2010 had the honour of being succeeded as president by denise who served as president with david wagner that year. denise was then and had always been and would remain until the end of her days an irrepressible agitator for justice. rest in power, denise. the rest i submit. >> mr. president, i would like to join in supervisor mandelman's in memoriam for denise. >> i would like to join that
also. >> supervisor fewer. thank you. >> thank you. >> roneen as well? okay. very good. any other members want to sign on for denise cian? >> i would like to make a motion for this to come from the entire board of supervisors, please. >> done. >> thank you, everybody. >> we'll move on now to supervisor mar. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, i just have one item for introduction this evening. an emergency ordinance reenacting public health emergency leave for the third time. workers continue to face an incredible amount of uncertainty and challenges. so extending this policy, providing additional paid leave to hundreds of thousands of san francisco workers is essential as we continue to navigate the pandemic and reopening our economy safely. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor mar.
all right. seeing no names on the roster, mr. president, that concludes the introduction of new business. >> thank you, madam clerk. we will have general public comments. if you would like to speak on the minutes or the item without reference to committee -- i'm going to give everybody one whole minute. >> mr. president, may i provide the telephone number and a little bit more information. >> of course. >> thank you. at this time, the board of supervisors will host public comment remotely. if you need assistance with access, please contact my office. we do have a clerk standing by, bless his heart, he's still there at 9:12 p.m. the telephone number is
415-554-5184. if you dialed in early and you have been listening to the proceedings and wish to get in line to provide your general public comment, press star 3 now. the prompt you are listening for is you have been unmuted and please just begin your testimony, your minute will begin at that time. if you are calling in now, the telephone number is displayed on our website. it is crawling on channel 26. it's the area code 415-655-0001. when prompted, enter the webex meeting identifier number, which is 146 36,020,139,063. 36,020,139,063 star 3 will move you back into
listening mode if you don't wish to be in line to speak. what agenda content is eligible for your public content. i want to provide a little bit of information on that. the items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board that are not on the agenda, the approval of the august 7th and the august 11th minutes, as the president mentioned, the mayoral appearance, and the items on the without reference to committee calendar, items 81 through 86. all other items, 1 through 63 and 76 through 78, are not agenda content eligible for your testimony. they have each had their duly noticed public hearing fulfilled at committee. i want to say this more clearly: items 24 through 47 specifically, those items contain the budget items for the city and county of san francisco. we know that there are important organizations mobilizing really good people out there to provide public comment today. we're asking that in your comments you just sort of stay
away from the budgetary items as a whole and we will not have to redirect your comments. the board appreciates the perspectives and the contribution that you've been bringing to the deliberative process. if anyone has questions about how to engage, please come to my office hours on friday from 1:00 to 3:00. the information is on the board's website, on the top banner, sfenvironment.org. we appreciate your engagement. there is no electioneering at these meetings. please address your testimony to the legislative body as a whole, not to individual members. i am sorry to say that we do not have interpreters present with us this evening. they had to leave at a specific time this evening. we do appreciate their support and they'll join us again next tuesday. i want to thank you for your patience with this reading and, mr. president, that concludes
the public comment information. >> madam clerk, go ahead and let's get started. >> all right. operations? we have seven listeners in the queue and 14 who are listening. let's hear from the first caller, please. >> (caller): hi. i'm calling to speak about the general comment and point out that the limitations in discussion are in violation of the sunshine ordinance. the city budget went through substantial changes on the night of august 26th -- >> sir, i don't want to have to -- >> residents have never had an opportunity to comment on it -- >> okay. all right. to the members of the public, do your best not to speak about the budget. you're welcome to talk about the mou for the police department, just not the budget.
caller, are you on the line? >> (caller): 67.15 a specifically says there's not an opportunity to address the board on -- unless the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item. the last changes are definitely substantial as they provide funding for labou labor, the mar herself is considered to be a significant risk and -- the changes are all made after the last meeting of the budget -- >> all right, sir. i think -- i redirected you once already. i'm going to give you another opportunity. curb your comments away from the budget. i don't want you to forfeit your place in line. please proceed. >> (caller): if you consider a hypothetical city worker, an sf resident that is not given a
raise, its interests are affected and they've never been afforded to address the committee on that item which comes directly. for example, thank you for passing this budget would be forbidden -- >> unfortunately, sir -- you unfortunately are not working with us on this. we're really trying to make sure everyone gets their public comment in. we don't want to cut anyone out. you have a little bit of time left. if you want to take it, but for the rest of the speakers, unfortunately we won't be this generous about this. go ahead and finish, sir >> (caller): okay. then my clarification is, does the city have a competing interpretation of the term substantial? this is purely about the sunshine ordinance. please advise what your definition of that means before you continue? thank you. >> thank you for your comments. i would love to have that conversation with you on friday
if you join me at my office hours. operations, let's hear from the next caller. >> (caller): hi. my name is sarah shockey, i live in district 10. [indiscernible] the police officers association contract allocated to city workers in the black community. right now there is no funding for raises for front line workers in year 2 of the budget but this renegotiation gives police all their original raises and two more years of 3% raises. the attempted legal action like prohibiting officers from shooting at moving cars and use of the carotid restraint that killed eric carter, they threatened a lawsuit so they could kneel on the necks of residents. implicit bias training described
the level of anti-black bias as extreme. last year black people made up only 5% of the city's population but almost 40% of all police searches and 50% of the jail population. the policing budget is nearly $1 billion -- >> ma'am -- >> more than enough to fund $120 million in reparations to the black community, raises to city workers -- >> ma'am. >> yes? >> you're past your time. our request is that you not talk about the budget. i know you're walking a fine line. we appreciate that. do your best to stay away from the budget portion as you're talking about the other part of your important comments. thank you. please proceed >> (caller): okay. sure. in that case -- so we need to use our resources protecting investments that create real public safety. our community needs more teachers, nurses, and other essential workers, especially in a time of crisis. we need to prioritize the people
who keep our communities running, not cops. the sfpd and the sheriffs don't teach our city's children, they don't provide medical care, they don't help our homeless problems and they don't keep our city running. they are reactive, not proactive. we need proactive solutions to become the progressive city we are. i yield my time. >> thank you for your comments. let's hear from the next speaker. hope you do your best to stay away from the budgetary matters. we do want to hear your comments, so let's start with the next caller >> (caller): hi. my name is peter and i live in district 5. i'm asking the board to vote down changes the memorandum of understanding -- lack in transparency for three years. the city's budget must reflect
its moral priorities. raises for cops must not come at the expense of -- cops are among the city's highest paid employees and they receive this money to do violence to citizens. they should cancel these raises, not simply defer them. the city should lay off officers, not push off those raises until later. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. all right. that was crossing over into budget territory. for the next caller, can you do a little bit better, please? make your comments known but without speaking about the budget for the city and county of san francisco. all right. let's give it another try. next caller, please. >> (caller): hi. this is sean shaw. i'm calling on concerned residents from district 6. we believe is acting in unethical and illegal ways.
we have witnessed property management taking advantage and using covid as an excuse for not fulfilling their end of the bargain on basic expectations of cleanliness, safety, and services. the list of offences is long and varied. most offences began when it was purchased by brookfield properties, a large corporate property manager and investment company. taken separately, the individual concerns may seem small, but things became bad and the residents felt needed to organize. once we came together and realized the scope of the problems, we realized the pattern of dangerous actions as a result of potential negligence. some concerns included new resurgence of pests and rodents, faulty water systems, no covid-19 compliance officer in place. withholding of services and amenities. preventing mail theft. even reports of toxic fumes in buildings without appropriate proactive mitigation from active
residents -- >> thank you, sir. thank you, sir. that was a minute. thank you. we appreciate your comments. operations, next caller, please. i believe we have seven members ready to speak in the queue. >> (caller): hi. my name is elliott. i live in mission bay. years ago i sat through those meetings at the blue ribbon panel that was investigating sfpd after the police murder of mario woods. and you all know that that incident really shook the city and the whole community showed up: black, white, brown, asian. everybody was there and invested in the outcome, and we all know what that outcome was, that they found a pattern and practice of discrimination by the sfpd against people of colour. we all know that the city is facing unprecedented financial hardship due to an unprecedented
pandemic, and we're faced with decisions that could either remake our home or undo this city that we love and call home. do we invest in the services that actually make our community safe, like schools, health and mental services, housing, and as supervisor walton eloquently brought up earlier, finding a solution to end hunger in the city, or are you going to approve precious funds for raises that go to the police department, a police department that has been shown to be biased and a menace, especially to communities of color. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next caller. >> (caller): hello, my name is erica. i live in san francisco. i'm calling today because we need to defund the police and
reinvest in our communities. i'm 20 years old. i'm a city college student. every single day we go out protesting, we're asking for change. please -- please re-evaluate your priorities. this police training is not good for the community. we are we investing in it? we need more resources for people in poverty. the poverty line in san francisco is ridiculously high. yet we just want to be heard, please. we protest every single day. we will continue to protest until the police are defunded. and not only with direction action, but we are calling in to these meetings. there are hunger strikes. protesters are getting arrested and organizers are being arrested as they leave the protest. sfpd -- the charges dropped. this is the resources that we are allocating to the police. this is what they do with them.
thank you. >> ma'am, thank you so much for your assistance and your comments, just being perfectly shaped to avoid the budget. we very much appreciate that. okay. operations, next caller, please. >> (caller): can you hear me now? >> yes >> (caller): it's david. is it one minute or two? i'm sorry. >> it's one minute tonight, david >> (caller): all right. i'll be very quick. number one for in memorians, i note the passing of (naming). again, too many san francisco characters gone too soon. 2. i'm working diligently to complete supplemental briefs on the two ceqa appeals i have before you next week. please read what's in the file and anything new and consider the continuance request. 3. i have two and only two ceqa
appeals pending before you at this time. i may be filing two more. last, number 4, just because i or anyone else files a ceqa appeal should not result in making it harder for anyone, for everyone, to file ceqa appeals. it's a basic right. it's very important. you had ceqa appeals earlier today. you get through them. this is not a problem that needs some global fix. i've been very selective about what i do and so are others. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. operations, next caller, please. >> (caller): my name is alli. i am a city worker living in district 9 and a member of the local union. i'm calling to demand the board reject the racist police association contract and protect the funds for city workers in
the black community. in my 17 years as a san francisco resident, i've seen police in action many times. cops have yelled at me, some with guns drawn. san francisco cops slammed a grieving mother face down on the hood of a police car for disturbing a crime scene, knowing that her son had been shot but had been taken and not whether he still lived. i have never seen cops defuse a situation. i no longer call the police in an emergency. when city officials say that as many as 300 officers could be laid off if the cops don't get the money they want, i say do it. the san francisco police department has shown itself to be unwilling and capable of reform -- >> thank you. thank you for your comments. next caller, please.
>> (caller): hello. my name is isabella. i live in district one and i own a small business in district 5. in june at a black lives matter march i experienced the police aggression. we marched peacefully. it was inspiring and very safe. we had been marching for some time down market street where suddenly out of nowhere, they were swarming down the sidewalks, sending your constituents running, panicked and afraid. we quickly jumped up on a mailbox to see why these police were making such a dangerous decision and there was nothing. they were slamming on their brakes, pulling u-turns, barricading side streets, own inciting panic for nothing. there was no danger except that which the police created. we all know this story is a mild example of the bullying, the violence that police enact on our streets