Skip to main content

tv   BOS Full Board of Supervisors  SFGTV  October 3, 2020 8:00pm-11:01pm PDT

8:00 pm
>> president yee: thank you very much. i will call public comment is closed now. there's been a motion and seconded it. madam clerk, let's go ahead and call the roll on the motion. [roll call vote]
8:01 pm
there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, this appeal hearing will go to october 27, 2020. please go to our next special order. please call items 56-59 together. >> clerk: comprised public hearing of associate motion for the appeal of determination of community plan evaluation for the proposed project 1088 howard street. >> president yee: okay. this will be continued to a later date. is there a motion to continue
8:02 pm
this item to october 6, 2020? >> i want to make a motion to continue the items to next week october 6th. i've in touch with the appellants and the project sponsors. they are amendable to the continuance. >> president yee: is there a second? >> supervisor mandelman: second. >> president yee: are there any public comments on the continuance of these items. >> clerk: operations do we have anyone in the queue? >> i have one caller in the queue.
8:03 pm
>> i didn't want to speak on this item. i'm just queuing up for the next item. you can identify my call p.p.p. >> clerk: thank you. anyone else in the queue? >> that completes the queue. >> president yee: let's go and take roll on the motion to continue. [roll call vote]
8:04 pm
there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: madam clerk, let's go to our next 3:00 p.m. special orders. please call items 60-75 together. >> clerk: comprised four separate proposed projects. they share the same party interest project sponsor the municipal transportation agency. all items were noticed for september 22, 2020. continued for public hearing until today. items 60-63 comprised public
8:05 pm
hearing for persons interested in determination of exemption under the california environmental quality act ceqa issued exemption by the planning department on june 10, 2020. the proposed municipal transportation recovery plan, covid-19 emergency temporary transit and bike lane project. item 64-67 associated motion for persons interested in the determination by the planning department on july 16, 2020 at the proposed m.t.a. safety project. item 68-71 for persons in hearing of the environmental review under the california environmental quality act by the planning department on july 15, 2020 for the m.t.a. department
8:06 pm
operation center covid-19 emergency temporary street changes program and item 72-75, comprised public hearing and associated motion to persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act issued as a statutory and categorical exemption by the planning department on july 1, 2020 for proposed m.t.a. phase 3 project. all four projects has associated motion reverses the department determination based upon finding and approved the preparation of finding. >> president yee: thank you madam clerk. colleagues we have before us today four appeals for m.t.a. proposed projects including the recovery plan, covid-19, emergency temporary transit
8:07 pm
lanes and bike ways project and panhandle social distancing and safety project, department of operation center, covid-19 emergency temporary street changes program and slow streets phase three project. these appeals are related to the planning department's determination, statutory exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act. today i call items 44-75 together. these items concern the ceqa appeals for the four separate projects undertaken by m.t.a. since o on the on set of covid-. the board regularly call items together where they contain
8:08 pm
similar issues and reduce for need of city departments, appellants and public to make or comment on the same points multiple times. in addition to covid-19, board of supervisors has backlogged uses. there's need for use and time sufficiently as possible. that said, these are separate appeals. the board will consider them as such. the public is also reminded that these projects as separate distinct. the public made comment on some or all of the projects and made comment in support of some and in opposition of others. it's a typical time that is
8:09 pm
given to parties it give additional time to the appellants, both to make their initial statements and for rebuttal. here we go, up to 12 minutes for a presentation david fillpell who is an appellant. up to 13 minutes for a presentation by mary miles who is an appellant for three of the appeals. we will also extends public comment to three minutes to allow for additional time. three minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. then up to 20 minutes for a presentation from the planning department and up to 20 minutes from project sponsor.
8:10 pm
then three minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal and support of the project. finally up to five minutes for a rebuttal from david fillpal and six minutes rebuttal from mary myles. i want to acknowledge that the appellants have renewed the request they made last week and that the board continue these items until next week. given last week's motion to continue already gave the parties an extra week to prepare the cases. i do not plan to introduce a motion to continue any of these items unless you have any questions or concern about the approach, we will proceed. colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding this
8:11 pm
way? seeing no objection, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. after the hearings the board will vote on whether to affirm or reverse the exemption from environmental review under ceqa for each project. seeing no names on the roster from my colleagues, i will ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. you have up to 12 minutes. are you there? >> can you hear me now? >> president yee: yes.
8:12 pm
>> i've been at this a long time. i'm pretty exhausted and somewhat upset. let me just start. i submitted a brief this afternoon about 2:30. i believe that was circulated. it is posted to the public in registrar under board file 200 2009-03 and attachment 22. the public has an opportunity they may want to read it if those of you on the board haven't read it or don't have the time to read it, then i would ask you to continue this hearing today. i'm going walk through that and i'm going to expand on some of the comments that i made in that written submission.
8:13 pm
in terms of tone, i'm going to try to keep my tone future or -- neutral or positive. i'm pretty upset and pretty exhausted, this is certainly draining away my life and not in a way i signed up for. i talked about yom kippur and reminded of some things yesterday. again, i hope you all had a chance to read this document. second, i renewed my continuance request that i previously filed on september 11th and september 18th as i previously statemented. i asked for continuance for at
8:14 pm
least one week to october 6th. i was told last week that m.t.a. can live with one week continuance. m.t.a. would not make such request but they would not oppose it if they were asked by the board. i urge you to grant the continuance request so in the. can speak to them unde -- so tht m.t.a. can speak to this under their time. in the section under applicable law guidelines, rules and procedures, i summarized what i believe are the principle law guidelines rules and procedures at issue here. i also briefly discussed two process requirements some of
8:15 pm
which i learned about from the city attorney government guide. i i have a section on procedural objections that i filed here. i want to say very clearly on the record, i have not filed any appeals regarding the panhandle project, shared spaces, slow streets or anything other than the two appeals that i filed myself. i want no association with those appeals that i have not filed. i object specifically to merging these appeals or consolidating them for purpose of hearing for any other reason. i talked in the brief about the language and admin code 3116 about consolidating appeals so they are heard simultaneously. that section only applies in my opinion to board file 200903.
8:16 pm
i seen nothing in the record that the board exercised the power containing that section. it includes that language. i don't think there's any other power to consolidate other appeals as you're now doing here for which chapter 31 could have provided. i'm fairly sure that courts have interpreted similar statutes and concluded that authority is conferred. that is the only authority granted and the absence of other provisions is presumed intentional. i feel that i'm denied basic due process here, denying reasonable continuance request and providing treatment of appellants. i talk about that further. i related the discussion that occurred last week with
8:17 pm
supervisor peskin, which i believe violated board rules. i suggested a remedy to that today and talked about the importance of avoiding bias or the appearance there of basic tenant due process. i have a section in here for anyone who are not familiar with me about my history involvement with the city and my intention with regard to the appeals that i have filed. the ceqa appeals that i filed are brought in good faith, about controversial project with language and statutes and guidelines can't be interpreted differently. i have not appealed every action taken by the m.t.a. nor do i intend to. i have a section about the
8:18 pm
m.t.a., the covid-19 context there. some description of the two projects that i've appealed and some discussion of the status of implementation of those projects. both of the projects i described here are pretty complicated. i tried to slow it down. i assume m.t.a. will describe them further. i have asked at the end here for a more clear and complete description of these projects, where they've been approved and the status of all of those elements. there could be thousands of locations across town. i have no way to tell where they've been implemented, where they are on hold and where they are contemplated for implementation and what the status is. as for the planning department, its offices closed to the public
8:19 pm
and most of the staff is working from home. the public has no access to case files and trying to navigate through the public portal or whatever the new permit tracking system is called, it's very difficult. ii go on to discuss plan's reviw and approval of ceqa exemption pursuant to memorandum of understanding between the two departments and it's unclear whether i other city departments to review the aspects of the project of the environmental review process. i want to spend most of my time here on the central argument against the exemptions. that's the public health
8:20 pm
emergency under other statutes is not necessarily an emergency under ceqa. i discussed statutory construction rules and i will leave that for you to read. i reported directly, verbatim language from the ceqa guidelines and from the law itself. in the last paragraph, said ceqa contemplate emergencies. i want to take a moment to cite from couple of cases if i have time here. western municipal water district
8:21 pm
versus superior court, it's the leading case. one moment. it's a leading case on an emergency under ceqa. the portions that are relevant here still hold. i'm not going to have time to read them now. i can if you have questions. if they are like our water agency is also still good. it has more on the concept of actions being necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. cal beach associates can be distinguished. it was without a retaining wall
8:22 pm
and in imminent danger. this was not about that. this is not about retaining wall, house or bluff. i believe it can be distinguished. finally the marshall case versus one of the school districts. to summarize, i'm asking for at least continuance to allow me at least to continue to meet and
8:23 pm
confer with m.t.a. i think we have talked a few times. that's been positive and productive. there are other steps that i outlined at the end of my brief. this is not a popularity contest. it's about the law and public may not had time to read my brief file today. would ask you that you post the m.t.a. and planning presentations that i expect they will be making shortly so i can review them briefly in preparation for my rebuttal time. thank you. >> president yee: thank you. supervisors, colleagues, do you have any questions? i don't see anyone on the roster right now.
8:24 pm
>> supervisor peskin: i see no reason to grant a continuance but will be happy to adjudicate these matters this evening as the presidential debate is going on right now. i see no reason to continue this matter. >> president yee: why don't we move forward. i will ask the appellant, mary miles to come forward and present your case. you have up to 13 minutes. >> clerk: operations, do we have a line which caller she is? >> can you hear me? i'm mary miles? >> president yee: we can hear you.
8:25 pm
>> okay. i had to call on the other line because i wasn't given operational phone number to call. i strongly object, filed objections to the way you are conducting this meeting. the merger of five different appeals into one essentially is what you are doing. these are separate appeals. they were filed in response to the separate actions of m.t.a., entirely different in terms of the issues. i agree with mr. pilpel that a continuance is needed. we have sum -- summarized objections which you have not acknowledged. i did raise my hand and wasn't allowed to object.
8:26 pm
this is usual here. you need to continue this because due process has been denied. you have published a misleading agenda to the public. nobody knows what's you're talking about, what items being talked about, things have to be individually considered here. yet, you're saying we only get 12 or 13 minutes to consider free appeals. that's the administrative code and your rules provide for 10 minutes per appeal. those are my objections. i hope i'm not being docked time to talk about substance. we have filed continuance motion on each of the appeals. you have not acknowledged them.
8:27 pm
we have filed three different ones. no acknowledgement, no consideration at any meeting, even though you lavishly confer continuances on the proceeding appellants without even asking. pretty amazing. i'll move on because i guess -- my inability to be called on to make objections is being countyd against me for talking about the appeals or not? [captioners transitioning]
8:28 pm
-- an emergency. they are -- they are the crazies -- we have congestion, we have to make it worse. let's make it worse. so that's what it's about.
8:29 pm
and we have -- we have pretty well delineated the facts here in our brief which we filed yesterday. we've had no time to brief most of these things or to submit the kind of information that would allow for an objective or meaningful review of the deal. so we know that it's a done deal. you have curtailed our time. you have curtailed our ability to speak individually to these appeals. so, yeah, i'm just waiting for the 11-0, monkey-see-monkey-do thing, and surprise me and don't do it better yet, consider the continuouses that we have asked for and that have not been considered at all. okay, let's go to what an emergency is under ceqa. if it is a sudden unexpected, with a clear and imminent danger
8:30 pm
demanding immediate action to prevent or to mitigate the loss over damage to health, property or essential public services. that is public resources, code 206.13 where it's defined. it gives examples, such as fires, floods, earthquakes. the -- and he did a good job of summarizing the case law. we have municipal which states that the -- that the construction of this definition is extremely narrow. that is, it cannot yo -- you hae to interpret it to give meaning to each word of the statute. and that case also says, in other words, is it sudden, is it unexpected occurrence? is there imminent danger?
8:31 pm
and don't look to covid-19. we do not have an emergency. there's no doubt that we don't dispute that there's a health hazard on the ground. that's not what this is about, however. this is about whether a renegade agency, m.t.a., with its 7,000 employees and $2 billion budget can do whatever it wants without public input, or ceqa review or any review. and it can't -- that can't pass muster under ceqa. it's not -- that is not an emergency. it does not address an emergency. this project under 903, the temporary so-called transit lanes, we know from m.t.a.'s own information that it's not temporary, it's permanent and it infers unlimited power on the m.t.a.'s traffic engineer to
8:32 pm
change any of the streets. and in ways that are just totally impactful to travel. the next thing -- of course the question of necessity must also be -- and everything about an emergency exemption, the burden, is on the planning department to support that exemption with essential evidence of every -- that every word of that definition applies. and we learned that from western municipal, and we also have the water agency, the city clerk, santa wha claarita, and the cout ruled that it was not an emergency. that it just happened. a development plan was the
8:33 pm
project -- the project redevelopment plan. and the court deemed that not an emergency. it didn't -- because it was not just about repairing the damage from the earthquake, it proposed new improvements such as bikeways that did not exist before the earthquake. thus, the port rejected it. that was not encompassed within the narrow specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency that the republic sources code and the guidelines ceqa guidelines 15629-c, one of the guidelines cited by the city as exemption. the mayor's proclamations and 26 supplements by the mayor to the health hazard proclamations and the health officer's numerous
8:34 pm
orders do not establish an emergency under ceqa. they're allowed under the government code, but they're not substantial evidence of an emergency. so, again, covid has been with us for over seven months. it's ongoing. people refer to it as the new normal. and it is not an emergency under ceqa. so we have said why -- i move on very, very briefly, because it's stated in our briefs. you're not giving me any time. the project is also not categorically exempt from ceqa. indeed, a categorical exemption for class one existing facilities and for a sudden occurrence, sudden unexpected occurrence, they're just more crazy, absurd, ill logic from m.t.a. you don't have a sudden
8:35 pm
occurrence. it's mutually exclusive. you can't have a sudden unexpected occurrence and also have an existing minor alteration to existing facilities. so that is silly and almost frivolous. we have stated further reasons why this is not categorically exempt. and i won't go through them. it would take too long and you are only giving me four minutes for each of these appeals. by the way, i've not had time to prepare so i'm sorry if there's no researched speech going on here. let's see. we also have strongly objected to m.t.a.'s failure to conduct the public proceedings on this
8:36 pm
temporary project. and it's misleading information to the public. i would remind this body that the director of m.t.a. has himself stated that automobiles -- automobiles are the safest way to get around during the covid pandemic. again, in our brief we go over that. i will move on to 200987, since i guess that i only have two minutes on this one. yeah. we have objected to participation by supervisor dean preston on this appeal because he aggressively promoted this project and held private meetings. so on to formulate and to promote the project. in this project, we don't have a categorically exemption. we simply have an emergency exemption. this project, by the way, is a plan to make a permanent -- it
8:37 pm
is again a permanent project, according to the transportation engineer of the city who stated so, and we have cited that in our brief. it is not exempt from ceqa for the same reasons that we just cited the temporary emergency transit and bicycle lanes project. so it removes parking. and it places a bikeway in the left lane of one of the major traffic corridor in san francisco, south street, which carries under normal circumstances about 30,000 cars, according to m.t.a.'s data. so we -- to remove traffic lanes, create dangerous conditions there, the fire department disapproved it. i guess that there's some
8:38 pm
conditional something -- unclear from m.t.a. where the fire department has been told that m.t.a. will somehow are view whatever they're doing at some point. of course, we know that it's permanent because he said so. >> clerk: you're muted, mr. president. still muted, mr. president. >> president yee: i will open up public comments for specifically those who would like to speak in support of the appeals. if you're here to support the appeal you will have an opportunity to come forward now and to up to three minutes.
8:39 pm
and for those who oppose the appeals, there will be an opportunity later in the hearing. at this time those who support the appeals, please, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. madam clerk, would you please call the first speaker. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. operations, do we have the first caller in the queue? >> yes, i have two callers in the queue. >> clerk: welcome, caller. >> caller: sorry. thank you. >> clerk: okay, thank you. we'll hopefully hear from you another time. operations, please unmute the next caller. >> caller: okay, this is bob planthold, do you hear me? >> clerk: yes, mr. planthold.
8:40 pm
>> caller: i'm sorry, because supervisor yee is muted. i'm speaking on item 60 and 68 and their attendance following the public resolutions. my comments are mine based on the circumstances of the programs and not related to or dependent upon the statements, the arguments, that the appellants made i'm a senior with a life-long disability that lived within a block of this area, church street, for 30 plus years. market street is a major corridor. what m.t.a. claims to do is to push more people off muni and on to the streets, exposing them to hazard injury. m.t.a. didn't do a passenger count to figure out how many have to cross church, cross market, go up the elevator to get down into the subway.
8:41 pm
i will say that there is a problem that apart from the injury risk that there's also the fact that the shared spaces along church street have deterred people from going into that block to pick up food from the few restaurants who are viable. during the course of this project of shared safety, one restaurant has closed up and gone out of business. and safeway suffered a loss of business. and the cars trying to go to safe way that used to go up market is now deterred. so there's more cars zig-zagging around the neighborhood trying to find a way around church and then get back to safeway to get in to shop so you're resulting in congestion and more pollution coming from cars, trying to get to safeway. but also of merchants who can't get into that block to deliver their goods and, therefore, they've got to circle until they find a place and then carry it
8:42 pm
on their own into their own stores. this is causing big delays, greater hazards to the people who are muni passengers, especially like me, people who are seniors, you can kids, grandkids -- so this has gone without adequate analysis and it's a hazard. >> clerk: thank you, mr. planthold. thank you. >> that completes the queue. >> clerk: thank you. mr. president. >> president yee: thank you for the comments. since there's no other public speaker, any speakers to make public comment, public comment for this section is closed. now we have -- we have up to 20 minutes for the representatives of the planning department to make a presentation.
8:43 pm
>> hi, good afternoon president yee and board members. >> president yee: hello. >> i am waiting a moment to see if my colleague, jenny, is going to share our screen and our project, our shared presentation. if not, i have it as available to share. she does not have access yet. >> i just created access to share. >> okay. all right. good evening, president yee, board members. i am marnie beale with the department staff. i'm here with other staff, i will be presenting the
8:44 pm
department's response to the appeals of the statutory exemptions for the covid-19 emergency temporary street changes program, and the panhandle distancing and safety project. and we will present the department's response to the appeals of the categorical and statutory exemptions for the covid-19 emergency transit lanes and covid-19 emergency temporary bikeways project. as well as the slow street presentation for phase three. this focuses on the environmental review and we'll give a brief description of the project and we'll rely on our colleagues at sfmta to provide a more detailed summary. and the department issued statutory exemptions related to emergency projects and we assessed two steps before issuing the statutory exemption. first, is there an emergency? and are the projects respondent to the emergency? the answer is, yes.
8:45 pm
ceqa states that specific actions necessary to provide or to mitigate an emergency are exempt from the requirements of ceqa. ceqa is defining an emergency as a sudden unexpected occurrence with a clear and imminent danger needing immediate action to prevent or to have loss or damage to life, property or health or essential public services. on february 25, 2020, mayor london breed had a local health emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus or covid-19 pandemic. on march 16th, 2020, a public health order was originally issued with a shelter in place and since amended as more information and recommendations become available. health orders are enforceable laws and are often accompanied by directives which provide legally binding instructions on how to comply with the health order such as maintaining six feet of social distancing in order to mitigate the spread of
8:46 pm
disease. our pandemic is not explicitly listed in a enforcement code, and such as the covid-19 pandemic, it falls within the category of events which is an emergency. second, we assess if any of the exclusions in the exemption apply and the answer is, no. the emergency project statutory comevmention does not, play to long-term projects undertaken for the purpose of preventing or mitigating a situation that has the probability of occurrence in the short term. and social distancing and the covid-19 emergency street changes program are accurately qualified as exempt from ceqa, because they meet the definition of an emergency project by addressing the need for adequate space to maintain six feet of social dancing. the panhandle project helps to
8:47 pm
alleviate congestion and the multiuse tasks in the pan handle of golden gate park for additional space for bicyclists on bell street adjaysent to the panhandle. the covid-19 emergency temporary street changes program helps to alleviate the overcrowding where queue lines are necessary to gain access to essential services and it also provides designated space for curbside pickup for restaurants and food-based organizations. and this applies to either project because they are mitigating an emergency that has a high probability of occurring in the short term. we are dealing with the pandemic now. and we assure that both projects have been implemented using temporary infrastructure, and within 120 days after the local emergency declarations. i will now hand the presentation to my colleague jenny, and to
8:48 pm
discuss the other programs. thank you. >> thank you, lauren. i'm jenny, the senior environmental planner with the planning department. the covid-19 emergency temporary transit lanes and covid-19 emergency temporary bikeways project would create temporary transit lanes, high occupancy lanes and bikeways on 36 corridors throughout the city. with health order c-1907 arrives the individuals on public transit to as reasonably as possible to maintain social distancing of at least six feet from any other person not in their household when they're outside of their residence. m.t.a. can respond to overcrowding through many ways. including by increasing the frequency of the transit vehicle, and providing other
8:49 pm
safe ways to travel between origins and destination for essential trips, increasing reliability to reduce overcrowding or all of the above. the temporary transit lanes would support sfmta in maintaining six feet of social distancing for people on transit vehicles, by shortening the travel times. and for the bikeways part of the project, would maintain six feet of social distancing through people riding bicycles and providing more dedicated space for that mode of travel. thus, the project would mitigate the health emergency, with the statutory exemption. and covid-19 public health emergency is ongoing. the high probability of this in the short term. thus, the exemption do not apply to this project. the slow streets safe project would expand the slow streets
8:50 pm
program to 14 corridors throughout the city. it would create space on the project corridors for people to maintain six feet of social distancing while walking, running and bicycling. and, thus, it would mitigate the public health emergency. as stated before, the covid-19 public health emergency is ongoing with a high probability of occurring in the short term, therefore, the exclusions to the statutory exemption do not apply to this project. and the planning department assesses whether the covid-19 temporary transit lanes and the covid-19 temporary bikeways project and the slow streets project are eligible for categorical exemptions. we also assess before issuing the categorical exemption. does it meet the class one exemptions? the answer is, yes. and are other categorical exemptions to existing
8:51 pm
facilities, including the existing streets, sidewalks and buffering and bicycle facilities. and do any of these apply? the answer is, no. a categorical exemption can't be granted if it needs exception with location or significant effects due to unusual circumstances. (indiscernible) the covid-19 emergency temporary transit lanes and covid-19 emergency temporary bikeways and the slow street project have minor alterations (indiscernible), therefore, meeting the definition of a class 1 exemption. it includes temporary infrastructure changes such as temporary signage. we also found that none of the exceptionions that proclude a categorical exception apply to the projects. in conclusion, each project meets the definition of an emergency project and none of
8:52 pm
the issues for the emergency project apply. the project is statutorily exempt. the two projects evaluated which are the covid-19 emergency transit lanes and the covid-19 emergency temporary bikeways project, and the slow street phase three project meet the definition of one. and none of the categorically exemptions apply to those projects. those projects are also categorically exempt. and this afternoon we received supplemental briefs to the covid-19 temporary emergency bike lanes. and the panhandle safety project and the emergency temporary street changes program. no new substantive information was presented to have additional response, and to this presentation. we recommend to uphold the ceqa exemption and the determination
8:53 pm
and to deny the appeal to the ceqa. that concludes our presentation and the staff are here to answer any questions. >> president yee: thank you both. any questions from my colleagues? okay. so nobody on the roster then. i will now invite the sponsors. the sponsors of these projects to make presentations, m.t.a. yo >> thank you very much. good evening, president yee and supervisors. my name is sarah jones and i'm the sfmta planning director. i want to introduce the presentation of the four sfmta projects whose environmental determinations are before you today. so before you hear from the project managers, i just want to explain the overall concept
8:54 pm
behind sfmta's emergency response and why we've initiated these particular projects in response to the covid pandemic emergency. go to the next slide. so this has been a lengthy emergency. we have been in a declared state of emergency since february. and i think that as others have noted that it's reasonable to say that an emergency of this sort is not what the state legislature envisioned in creating this exemption. however, what they did recognize is that there are emergency circumstances where the discretionary decisions and the actions need to be made without using the everyday approach in response to the particular circumstances. so the circumstances for covid -- what we have needed to do is to collectively needed to find ways to conduct and to provide both basic services and
8:55 pm
emergency services in a way that minimizes the risk of transmission of coronavirus. so this has meant using the infrastructure that we manage at sfmta differently. we're carrying fewer people on our buses. we need to actively to support walking and biking at a much higher level than ever before. and we need to use our outdoor space on the streets to support city emergency efforts like testing and food distribution. and this is an unprecedented situation. and we are doing everything that we can to look out for human life and health. so we're also finding that as the city reactivates more and more, these programs that we're putting into place are actually becoming increasingly necessary. there are more things going on in the city and there's more cars on the street. but at the same time we at sfmta still have major capacity
8:56 pm
constraints and still need to be looking out for minimizing risk of viral transmission. so we need to use our buses and our streets as efficiently and as effectively as we possibly can. the projects and the programs that we're talking about have all been authorized to be in place for the emergency period only. i'd like to emphasize that. unless they are considered and approved as permanent projects during this intervening time, they're all approved to be in place only until 120 days after the state of emergency is lifted. and so now i'm going to pass this along to michael roads from the transit division to talk about the temporary emergency lane project.
8:57 pm
michael? >> sorry about that. thank you, sarah. and good evening president yee and supervisors. my name is michael rose i'm the manager for the transportation recovery plan, covid-19 temporary emergency transit lanes and covid-19 temporary emergency bikeways project with the sfmta. the project is also just known as the temporary emergency transit lanes or title project. during the covid-19 pandemic, our ability to provide transit service has been limited in several ways. there are fewer operators available due to health and safety concerns. there are fewer vehicles available due to increased cleaning requirements. and there's a diagram here that shows the capacity of each muni vehicle is a third of its pre-covid levels due to physical distancing requirements. given these reductions in service and frequency, it's critical that muni avoids
8:58 pm
traffic delays to reduce unsafe overcrowding and the amount of time that passengers spend onboard. this led to the creation of the temporary emergency transit lanes project which the sfmta board approved on june 30th. as this map shows, the traffic congestion was much lighter in the early weeks of shelter in place. as a result, muni saw a savings on average during that time and as the map shows in certain parts of the city the savings were much larger, up to 50% in some places. this is allowing more frequent service with the limited number of buses that we had available and the increased frequency also helped to support the physical distancing for our riders with buses coming more often. but we're starting to see congestion return. and this is leading to more crowding guidelines, especially on our most heavily used lines like the 14 mission and the 38
8:59 pm
derry. and the temporary emergency transit lanes project is designed to ensure that people who rely on transit has reduced risk of covid-19 transmission and have a reliable travel experience when making essential trips and they're not getting passed up by full buses. we can protect the buses from traffic delays and make sure that they're running are liabley to prevent -- reliably to prevent overcrowding and reduce the amount of time on the bus. this will reduce the risk of covid-19 transmission. the sfmta board approved the transit lanes on nine specific corridors which are shown in green on this map. a few of the corridors on this map are also bicycle routes and in those cases we've included accommodations for bikes such as allowing them to use the transit lanes as well. at the same meeting the sfmta board delegated temporary authority to the traffic engineer to put temporary transit lanes on additional corridors following the public
9:00 pm
hearing. these corridors were specifically identified by the sfmta board at that meeting and they're shown on this map in orange and in gray. the sfmta board gave direction to staff that any corridor that generates a lot of concern among the local stakeholders should still be taken to the sfmta board for approval. as a result, the members of the public will have opportunity to provide input in advance of any future temporary transit lanes receiving approval. this project that sarah mentioned was 120 days after the emergency order is lifted for any corridor to be made permanent and the board of directors would need to approve the project following the additional public engagement and environmental review as needed. we've taken an approach to public outreach with the public health emergency. it comes from the initial round including by helping to determine which corridors were
9:01 pm
approved on june 30th and which would undergo more extensive community outreach first. as the sfmta has moved towards implementation of these projects the staff have had virtual open house meetings with specific corridors to explain the project in detail and answer questions from the community. and to solicit feedback on evaluation. the community is helping to evaluate and to adjust the emergency transit lanes in real-time and we're prioritizing with the historically underrepresented communities. based on public feed back and monitoring, the sfmta can tweak or remove transit lanes to meet the needs of community and muni riders. and we're looking at crowding as well as monitoring the impacts to traffic. community feedback will also help us to determine whether to pursue the permancy on a location-by-location basis. and it's subject to the same separate environmental review as
9:02 pm
needed and a full approval process. it's an opportunity to respond to the emergency transportation challenges and to address the community needs and to ensure that transportation safety and public health during this unprecedented time. next you will hear about the panhandle social distancing and safety project. >> good evening, president yee and board members. my name is elizabeth chen and i'm the project manager for the panhandle social distancing and safety project. so in response to observations of overcrowding and lack of physical distancing on the panhandle path, the project provided a parking protective bikeway between baker and traitor streets. since cyclists can choose to ride, and there's pore spac morr physical distancing. and we wanted to remove elements
9:03 pm
so they could have signs. and as you can see in the before and after diagrams shown here, one of the four thru lanes was removed as part of this project and parking was maintained on both sides of the street but the southside is now floating parking lanes. no changes were made to driveway access, intersections or pedestrian crossings. so in may before the project was announced we coordinated with the district 5 supervisor's office and presented the project during an online community meeting we also launched a project website that included contact information for project staff, and additionally we worked closely with sfsd to address any concern that this project could increase emergency response times. including co-developing an evaluation and monitoring plan to assess the changes to travel times and with the sfmta board in august with the stipulation that the approval expires 120 days following the expiration of
9:04 pm
the covid-19 local emergency. and like mentioned before, if any permanent changes to south street were to be contemplated, the sfmta would conduct public engagement, environmental review as needed, and project approvals as needed for any changes under consideration. the bikeway on south street was installed adjacent to the panhandle path. next you will hear about the covid-19 emergency temporary street changes program.
9:05 pm
ian? >> my apologies. i was on mute. thank you, elizabeth. good evening, president yee and supervisors. my name is ian trout and i'm an emergency within the m.t.a.'s transportation engineering group. on march 13th, the m.t.a. formally activated our department operations center following the february announcement by the mayor of the local proclamation of emergency. myself and about 20 other staff members are currently working at the department operation center or d.o.c. for short. the main goals are that we help the c.c.c. or the covid command center, protecting and limiting the severe illness and deaths from covid-19 as well as preparing for and protecting the health and safety of the public and vulnerable populations from covid-19. so on this slide and on the following slide i'm going to show you basically images of
9:06 pm
what the city has done in order to achieve the above -- those above goals that i mentioned. these two examples show a covid drive-thru testing site. on the left. and on the right hand the photo, there's a paramedic vehicle parking that we have placed so that our emsa, or the emergency medical services association, can deploy ambulances throughout the city to treat and to transport covid-positive individuals. on the following slide, these are additional photos showing how we've temporarily removed parking, in this case on the unit block of south street, to provide critical covid response building -- increased access to covid-19 response buildings. and then on the photo on the right is an example of grove street in front of city hall which was a one day-street
9:07 pm
closure for the food bank. in addition to this, there are other food bank locations, including grenwich and alabama streets as well that have been deployed. on the following slide, these images show a partial road closure or a 24-hour full-time road closure to accommodate the meals on wheels food preparation facilities as well as covid field hospital and a testing site. on the following slide, there's another -- this is photos of the tenderloin. these are examples, again, of parking lane removal or daytime street closures and are urged to provide space for folks to congregate and queue for essential services. and to get -- to get the need in that neighborhood. as many of you know it is one of the densist neighborhoods in the city -- dense neighbors in the
9:08 pm
city and it came about from a neighborhood assessment plan which was crafted in coordination with the department of public health, looking at ways in which we can reduce the transmission rates of covid-19 as well as looking at other factors such as transportation, social distancing, mask compliance and other -- other factors. the last -- the next slide is the kind of the program process. and i want to iterate that the -- this program is very, very quick. many of these photos that i showed and changes to the streets only last for limited durations. sometimes only one day a week. sometimes up to a month. and as folks know the city have an obligation to act quickly during the emergencies such as the covid pandemic. so once we receive a request from the covid command center
9:09 pm
organizations such as the food bank and, for example, other anxiouses, the department of operation centers, we analyze the request and we implement it typically within two to seven days upon receiving the request. in the cases of the larger lane or road closure, we will take that through a process called covid task. which stands for the transportation advisory staff committee. it's an interagency group that consists of fire, police, public works, planning, and other agencies that reviews these larger street changes that could potentially impact their emergency access or cause substantial traffic modifications. so as such, we use that process to make sure that all of the constituents and the various agencies throughout the city are aware of the change that is about to occur.
9:10 pm
residents can always use 311 to ask questions and impose feedback. many times we have made minor tweaks following the implementation of these temporary changes in the field. and next -- and the last slide is just two more photos showing the changes that we've made removing parking to allow for food palettes on alabama street, and then on pennsylvania in front of the s.f. food bank, allowing for curbside pick-up and drop off for volunteers helping to deliver the food to the people that need it. so next there will be a presentation on the slow street phase 3 program. >> good evening, president yee, and supervisors. i'm shannon higg, the program manager for slow streets. i come before the board -- i came before the board with appeal of phase 1 of slow streets so you're already familiar with these projects.
9:11 pm
these are temporary residential street traffic restrictions that create space for socially distanced walking and biking during the covid pandemic. phase three, what we're discussing today, includes 14 new corridors that have not yet been implemented. they're shown on this map in blue and these corridors were entirely community generated suggested by residents and stakeholders and neighborhood associations and even your offices. so phase three is approved by the m.t.a. board on july 21st and, granted the categorically and the statutory exemption for ceqa which we're asking you to uphold today. that concludes our presentation i hope that we have demonstrated the connection between these four projects and our covid emergency response and we're available for any questions. >> president yee: thank you very much for the presentation. any questions?
9:12 pm
okay, i don't see any. no one is on the roster. all right, let's go on to -- let's see if there's somebody from the public that would like to make public comments in opposition of the appeal. or in support of the project. and so if you want to do that, press pound -- not pound -- star, and then 3 to be added to the queue to speak. you will have up to three minutes. madam clerk, could you please call the first speaker. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. we do have a special guest on this side. his name is bob planthold and he was entitled to three minutes. he spoke earlier for two minutes and i promised him i would let him finish his last minute at this moment. operations, are you prepared to
9:13 pm
have mr. planthold make his comments, please. mr. planthold, you have up to one minute. >> caller: okay, so what you folks aren't aware of is that the j. church project is not the covid response. so it's not an emergency response. just november last year, before he was hired, gave an interview suggesting the changes be made the point is this is now writ large but it's not an emergency sentence. secondly, when i mentioned about the hazards of market street, i was a witness to a person in a wheelchair being hit at market and church. you could have more of us now being out there. beyond that, m.t.a. did not tell people how they could protest, contest, any decision recommended by hearing officer at a public hearing recommended to the city traffic engineer. we didn't know when that decision was made. we didn't know who to contact,
9:14 pm
how to protest. the planning department was kept silent of all of this information that is relevant as to what manipulation, activities that m.t.a. didn't do and did do, but which now biases the planning department's response because they lack what m.t.a. should have provided. all of those are reasons -- the hazards and the procedural bias, they should be accepted and -- >> clerk: thank you, mr. plantholden. and thank you for your good nature on this. we very much appreciate your contribution. all right, so as the president stated, we are now taking public comment from those individuals who support the m.t.a.'s project. all four of them. and who are in opposition to the appeal. first caller, please. i believe, mr. president, you are providing three minutes per public comment speaker? >> president yee: that's correct. >> clerk: okay. operations, please.
9:15 pm
>> caller: hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. welcome. >> caller: great. good evening, supervisors. my name is jordan wing and i'm here with streets for people bay area. i'm calling in to support rejecting the appeals before you. first, i want to briefly respond to a comment from the appellants. they alluded to cars being the safest way to get around during covid, but not everyone in san francisco has a car. so for those of us who don't it's vital to our safety to get around while also social distancing. that means high frequency muni service and safe bike lanes as the sfmta has done. but, really, i don't think that i could imagine a more striking of example of just how broken this process is. we're in the middle of two crises, one is a global pandemic and the other is climate change that caused wildfires that made the air outside hazardous. and this allows sa san franciscs to safely travel outdoors and to
9:16 pm
have workers to travel without cars and had emergency food and testing sites to those in need. it took two accounts to abuse the environmental review process and to prevent the improvements in these areas since july. this is not the first time that ceqa appeal had months of delay and without efforts by the board it will not be the last. so for that reason, more than anything, i strongly urge you to take up legislation to fix this appeals process. things that i've heard you can require signatures to file an appeal of an exemption determination. allow the m.t.a. to continue work during the appeals process. shorten the appeals window from 30 days after the determination to just 10 days. and to require the apel appellao raise concerns during the process, as san jose does. this is a step forward. if we want to meet the ambitious goals that it will take to keep our residents safe and to save our climate, we'll have to do better than the process that
9:17 pm
brought us here for now, six hours today. i urge you to reject these appeals and to reformulate this process. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's unmute the next caller, please. are you there, caller? >> caller: hi, hi, yes, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> caller: can you hear me? thanks, sorry. ironically i'm in a freaking car because we don't have enough transit service to get from one side of the town to the other for my son's soccer practice. so i have to -- here we go. my name is stacy reans did decker and i'm a 20-year resident of san francisco and a homeowner raising two children. i'm gravely concerned about the state of this city and our
9:18 pm
planet. 47 years ago this body stated that san francisco is transit first. in 2013, after averaging 32 deaths per year by motor vehicles, this body resolved that we should adopt policies to reach zero deaths by motor vehicle in 10 years' time. last february, the body resolved that the planet is in a climate emergency. last october, this body declared a state of emergency on pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in san francisco. at the close of 2019, we hit a 10-year high of 42 deaths by motor vehicle, and a five-year average of 32 deaths per year. that's five years, and deaths are completely unchanged from the adoption of vision zero. let me connect the dots. climate change is caused by greenhouse gases. transportation is the number one source of greenhouse gases. transit, biking, scooters and
9:19 pm
walking versus driving are ways that we can reduce greenhouse gases and prevent traffic fatalities. but people don't use them if they don't feel safe. if the past five years, we have lost over 8 million acres of california to fire with 3.8 million okayer thimillacres thi. and the grass fire is still raging at 43,000 acres and zero percent containment and our fire season hasn't even started ceqa is the california environmental equality act and it's used to perpetuate motor vehicle dominance and insufficient housing. the very things that are killing us and the planet. i haven't even said pandemic or covid once. these are changes that we should make despite that. now that people must maintain physical distance, it seems absolutely unconscionable that we are indulging these frivolous and dangerous appeals.
9:20 pm
plus one on everything that jordan said. please, make changes to this ridiculous process. it has been completely bastardized and endangering our health and welfare as a city, state and planet. we need to reduce the use of motor vehicles and give people plenty of space outside and we need protected bike lanes and wider walkways throughout the city. we need mor more housing. we need to ensure that ceqa is used to help our environment. you have the power to change these things and inaction is equivalent to homicide by arson. please act. >> through the president, thank you so much for pulling over. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor preston. good point. okay, operations, is there another caller, please?
9:21 pm
>> caller: hello, i'm winston parkins and i'm here to speak in support of the temporary transit lanes and bikeways and ask that you reject this appeal. to reduce overcrowding and to make the muni lines safer for riders and to make it safer for operators as well. these are measures that will improve the conditions for taxi drivers and operations which serve our most vulnerable residents. many of the clients that i serve at the senior center that i work at that is located on gary boulevard, ride transit. and the 28 and the 39 to get to food pantries and to get to the doctor and more. like rob anderson and miss miles already tried a decade ago to advance these arguments holding up the transportation infrastructure for years. they have farcical evidence, while the state is on fire. and the western one-third of the u.s. was on fire and this is just the beginning.
9:22 pm
focusing again on public health, my sister who works as a stylist and lives in oakland recently was able to start working again in downtown s.f. she called me after her first day and said that she felt safe riding transit and a bit nervous riding bart because of crowding but fearful on 38 because of the crowding on there. now she, a healthy individual in her late 20s, feels unsafe, i have to wonder how older adults, those who are immunocompromised feel and especially those who can't rent the zip car or don't have a car to drive as an alternative. i suspect that this is a reality that they are removed from, that they are declaring this is nottage emergency and they're sitting in comfort while denying essential services. i ask that you ignore their farcical arguments and approve these transportation measures. thank you, and have a lovely evening. >> clerk: thank you for your
9:23 pm
comments. okay, operations, is there another caller? we're hearing public comment from those members of the public who are in support of the m.t.a. projects, and in opposition to the appeal. welcome. you'll have up to three minutes. >> caller: hi, thank you. can you all hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> caller: hello? okay, great. hi. my name is alex howly and i'm calling in support of the measures that the sfmta is taking. i think that we can all agree that it is most certainly an emergency. whether or not you are referring to the global pandemic or whether or not we're referring to the millions of acres of california that have burned this year. and i believe that as measures to alleviate crowding and provide people with respite
9:24 pm
outside as well as safe avenues to walk or bike, and to have alternative ways of moving through their city, that these have been fantastic. i would absolutely reject the appellant's claims. i can't really see the point of using ceqa, which is meant to be an environmental act to protect the environment, and using it in the exact opposite way which is to harm the environment. and so i would just like to support you all and thank you for your work and trying to make san francisco a better place right now in the midst of all of this crisis. thanks. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. so there are 16 listeners in the queue. and there are five members who are already lined up to make public comment. if you are one of the 16
9:25 pm
listeners, please press star, 3, if you would like to make public comment on behalf of the m.t.a.s decision and in opposition to the appeals. operation, next caller, please. >> caller: hello, good evening, supervisors. sorry for that, i'm out of breath and working out while waiting my turn in line. i'm mike chan and i live in district 2 and i'm speaking as a member of the advocacy group that advocates for walkable and sustainable and more affordable neighborhoods. you know, so i would like to talk about my experience in district 2, which has been that, you know, we really don't have that many slow streets right now. we'd love to see the slow streets to come through pacific avenue and on queen street but it's hit by this appeal. not jut out of district 2 but i go around the city. and the bike lane is wonderful
9:26 pm
and it helps to reduce the crowding in the panhandle. and i'm speaking against all of the appeals, and asking that you affirm the ceqa determination. and the other thing that other callers have also said is that we have a very, very low bar for people to file ceqa appeals, so even if people are doing everything right, something can be frozen. something that i read in the laws around ceqa determination says that the boorld of board of supervisors has a time limit on how long a ceqa appeal is to go, 60 to 90 days. and frequently that's not really enforceable. so in addition to the other things that commenters have said around shortening appeal times and making sure that -- making sure that things are heard quickly, i think that it's also speeding up the time that things are heard quickly and possibly allocating penalties in terms of the staff cost and the staff time if an appeal is without
9:27 pm
merit. and raising the requirements. and making sure that these appeals as required by state law have an avenue of being heard, but raising the friction because it doesn't make sense for one person to deny something that has been affirmed by so many agencies and so many people. and so in conclusion, please fix this process as, you know, scott wiener did in 2013. i think that was a good step. we should do more. i think we should do -- and to please deny these appeals. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. (please stand by)
9:28 pm
>> clerk: thank you for your
9:29 pm
comments. operations, let's unmute the next caller, please. >> hello, everyone. my name is dave alexander. i'm with silverton family transport. i want to thank our amazing m.t.a. staff who present countless hours preparing this report. so i'm calling to support the temporary transit lanes and bike lanes. the one common thread that i've heard throughout the presentation and callers is that these projects, emergency projects, are helping people get their needs met, so it's really important that we keep this in mind as we move forward. a third of richmond district residents filed for unemployment in the last quarter, so that's a major concern. the other is, again, covid is an emergency, and continues to
9:30 pm
be. we must ensure that [inaudible] thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's unmute the next caller. >> hi. this is hayden miller. just wanted to voice my opposition to the ceqa appeal and voice my concern to the categorical exemption. more than 40 employees have tested positive for covid-19. this is killing people in our city, and to try and prevent
9:31 pm
these projects that are speeding up our essential workers' commutes, making sure it's more safe for them, and it's unconscionable. they're saving lives, and slowing them out, it's terrible. i hope you guys will make the right decision today. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's unmute the next speaker, please. >> hi. can you hear me? >> welcome. >> my name is joe dane, and i'm a district 4 resident. i want to thank the board of supervisors for hearing public comment today. i'm calling to support the san
9:32 pm
francisco m.t.a.s slow streets project and to deny the appeal. [inaudible] nothing normal about the time that we're in, unable to make physical contact with others. transit options are greatly reduced, and the spaces that we can go to and congregate in are greatly limited. of course, not everyone is going to be happy, but it should be noted that the changes aren't permanent. i'd also like to add, and this is important going back to what
9:33 pm
stacey rendacher has said, speeding and other dangerous charges have increased significantly. at the same time, police enforcement for the focus on five violations and traffic enforcement in general has dropped through the floor since march and has accelerated this decline in total citations issued since 2017. we're issuing fewer citations than we did in january 2017, and 67% fewer citations than we were back in january of this year. my observation, if you draw them on the treats right now, you're at much -- them on the
9:34 pm
streets right now, you're at much more danger because the streets are empty, and the cars who feel like they're on a racetrack. i want my family and kids who go bike riding with me, they can feel confident that they live in a community where they're not going to get killed by reckless drivers, and they feel safe. i hope that everyone will be able to use the programs throughout the city, and i'm looking forward to participate in as a city that hopefully will be going live after this project. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. great. thank you for your comments. operations, can you please unmute the next speaker?
9:35 pm
>> hello. this is mary eliza. i sent in a few questions questioning the procedures. if the request is not granted, i ask that you deny the appeal. this sounds more like a pilot project than an emergency program. we just had a long conversation over the confluence of categories, and this sounds like a similar case. we're not sure what rules we're following. people rely on physical
9:36 pm
delivery for access and customer pick ups and transit to survive. all of these emergency measurements may not allow them to operate in situations that are not listed. we're not sure what the processes are for removing the emergency state restrictions [inaudible] should each business address the district office for relief or will there be a citywide listing of all the street restrictions at one time? we heard earlier today that that was the plan, but there may be some changes if people try to make these restrictions permanent during that time, so that's basically it. thank you for letting me speak in favor of the appeal. i was not able to get on earlier today, so thank you for
9:37 pm
that -- listening to my request. >> clerk: okay. thank you for your comments. we appreciate your contribution. generally, these appeals are divided up in support of the appellant and support of the project sponsor just for next time. okay. operations, is there another caller, please? >> operator: madam clerk, that completes the queue. >> clerk: thank you, operations. mr. president? >> president yee: thank you very much. thank you for the comments, and seeing no other speaker, then, public comment is now closed. okay. let's move onto our next segment, which is i will invite both appellants to present rebuttal arguments. mr. pillpow, you have two minutes, and mary, you have up to six minutes. mr. pillpow, please go ahead
9:38 pm
and start. >> can you hear me now? >> president yee: yes. >> okay. i just got a message from at least one person who tried to make comments and who was unable to do so. okay. can you please warn me when i have one minute left? thanks. the key issue here is still whether this is an emergency under ceqa, and i still didn't hear clear from m.t.a. or planning how this was an emergency under ceqa, and if so, how the projects address the emergency. please refer to the court cases that i cited and possibly others. alternatively, a changed condition happens over time and allows time for environmental review. here, exactly how do the
9:39 pm
specific actions proposed prevent or mitigate an emergency? all i heard from m.t.a. and planning was they allow 6 feet for social distancing. in that case, all sorts of things would qualify. i think that's a generalized assertion and not a specific showing. next, why do these projects end 120 days after the crisis supposedly ends? that's well beyond the end of the crisis, if it ever does end, and how do planning and m.t.a. -- under what circumstances would m.t.a. and planning think that this becomes an ongoing condition? if we're still at this two or three -- next year or two or three years from now, that --
9:40 pm
is that still an emergency under their writhinking and non ongoing condition? i'm thinking seven months in here, this is an ongoing condition. this is not an emergency or three days after a rock slide. i just want to respond briefly to a couple of public comments. i don't have a car. i take muni. i want all weekend muni routes back. i want to see the three jacks, the 7 balboa, and the 33 ashbury. i want to see all those back. i don't like the situation more than anyone else, but from my perspective, this is a difference of opinion. i'd much prefer to spend my limited time working with m.t.a. and planning to improve transportations and planning and environmental review and engagement. i do not enjoy spending my time
9:41 pm
filing and following appeals like this. i would like to withdraw one or both of my appeals if i come to an agreement with m.t.a. and planning, which takes time. i can address any questions that you may have. if you've not read my brief, then please do so, and i just wanted to take some time to read from western municipal in particular, the emergency exception under 2108 ep-4 is extremely narrow. question particularly note that the definition limits an occurrence to an missiemergenct an action. if a damage is ready to burst or a fire is raging out of
9:42 pm
control, and human life is threatened as a result of delaying a project decision, application of the emergency exemption would be proper, but that -- but it goes onto talk about a more expansive view of an emergency would create a hole in ceqa fathomless depth and spectacular breadth. i could go on -- thank you. i could go on quoting from western municipal, which then cites two -- sorry, which then sites all kinds of other ceqa cases. that's not the point here. i recognize that different people can come to different conclusions about this, and i would appreciate if people
9:43 pm
would respect my perspective here, even if they don't agree with it. thanks very much. >> president yee: thank you. supervisor peskin, did you have a question? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. did the appellant in a couple of these matters just indicate that he may be willing to withdraw, and if so, through the president to the appellant, under what circumstances would he withdraw this appeal, which we have yet to adjudicate? >> president yee: mr. pillpow, you still on? >> can i respond to that? >> president yee: yes, you may. >> supervisor peskin: i don't want to violate the rule for a fourth time, but yes. >> no, no. i'm now acting as an appellant, and we now have the opportunity to dialogue, so i think we're good. i'll be willing to withdraw one or both of my appeals if i come to an agreement with m.t.a. or
9:44 pm
planning. i've been in discussion with m.t.a. representatives. i've suggested some points. they are considering those. it chiropractors further discussions. i have not had conversations with planning. that's why it requires an additional week. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president. mr. pillpow, would you just state for the record what are you presenting to the m.t.a., your terms of withdrawal for these matters? >> well, okay -- again, with respect, i don't think you've asked other appellants to release agreements that they've made --
9:45 pm
>> supervisor peskin: mr. pillpow, through the president -- >> president yee: mr. pillpow, it was a question. you can answer or not answer. it's up to you. >> i've suggested some outlines of some issues that involve a process, and considering restoring weekend transit service and reviewing the arrangements at church and market and west portal and a number of other things. it's a somewhat detailed and complicated list that i'd prefer not to go over right this moment, but i can just say that i have had productive conversations with m.t.a. representatives. when we're able to talk, we get work done, you know? >> supervisor peskin: so through the president to the appellant. so what you're saying is this is not an environmental matter,
9:46 pm
you're just using this as an attempt to leverage changes in public policy that you're desiring. is that true? >> no, i'm sorry. that's not what i'm saying. there are definitely issues related to environmental review. i'm sorry i didn't comment on those just now. there are definitely issues as it relates to environmental review wiby the planning department that would be subject to further conversations. >> president yee: so why don't we move on. if we have further specific questions, we can answer those, but i want to gave mary miles her opportunity to present her
9:47 pm
rebuttal arguments, and you have six minutes, mary. >> hello? can you hear me? >> president yee: hello, yes. >> okay. the six minutes to the city's 40 minutes and whatever else is going on here. i do have a few points. i agree with mr. pillpow that the -- that either m.t.a. nor planning has actually addressed on point each of these situations necessitating an emergency or the necessity of any of these projects. there's no evidence, for example, that any [inaudible] that they're making any essential trips. there's been no origin or destination study or data that would show that anybody's
9:48 pm
making an essential trip on a bus or a bike or the other 98% of people that are using cars. and i heard m.t.a., i believe it was mr. rhodes, say is -- the pedal being temporary, this is not temporary. m.t.a.s own submissions show that they say it's not temporary. he's saying after 120 days, there'll be some kind of public engagement and environmental review as needed. well, the environmental review was needed before the project was approved, and that's established law. same thing was stated by ms. chen. we'll have some engagement here
9:49 pm
and environmental review if needed. well, you need to conduct an approval process that considers the environmental review and then allow the public, the general public to participate. there's no public process, just as you're not allowing public process and arguing against the appeal from your perch. some other people talked about covid being an emergency. let's go there. covid has, according to the department of health website, readily available, says it has 99 people out of 11 million people in san francisco or so in san francisco that travel in san francisco. 99 have died since february.
9:50 pm
covid is contracted by 1%. i don't know if 1% tests positive or contracts the disease, but of that 1%, 1% would die. that would be .001%. so let's get this out this. people are not dying, and san francisco has the adequate facilities. that was a concern, and it turns out it has plenty of facilities. so again, even if it were a health hazard, and we don't deny that it is, it is not an emergency under ceqa, and the city has access to those facts. the other thing that i'm bothered by is that some
9:51 pm
members of the public seem to feel that they are in the majority for some reason, well, let's take that apart. bicyclists have -- according to m.t.a., bicyclists constitute 2% or less of the traveling public. that is the share for bicycling. so the vast majority of people, especially with covid, choose to use automobiles, and it wasn't i that said -- it was mr. tumlin, the director of m.t.a., who said that automobiles are the safest form of transportation during the covid pandemic. the whole incredible word description of fires being caused by me or somebody up here that files an appeal, it's
9:52 pm
preposterous, and we're tired of hearing that our right to speak and get redress should be limited for some reason. how do you know how many people oppose this stuff? you haven't held a fair hearing. you haven't given the people time to speak. [inaudible] you know? in any event, we also stated in our objections that we -- that this was a violation of the brown act, so i would mention that, as well, under the law
9:53 pm
and ceqa, the environment belongs to everyone, not just the 2% who have lots and lots and lots of leisure time to buzz around on their bicycles. you have no evidence that the people on the buses are -- >> president yee: okay. so i think that's it, and public hearing has been held and is now filed. as previously discussed, we will take up the california environmental quality act for each project, which involves the analysis whether the
9:54 pm
determination from the planning department was appropriate. to reverse the planning department's decision, six votes of the board is required. colleagues, do you have any further comments? okay. seeing none, so -- supervisor haney? i'm sorry. >> supervisor haney: thank you, president yee. i know it's been a long hearing, but i'll be quick. you know, i don't think that there is any question for this board or for our city or for the country that we are in an emergency. the idea that a handful of people would come forward, and with their own interpretation, say that we are in an emergency, and because of that, we need to expend tremendous time and resources and energy
9:55 pm
responding to them and justifying the fact that we are in an emergency when it was obvious to everyone in our city that we are is actually quite incredible. being that we are in an emergency, it is obvious and necessary and essential that we would take emergency measures on our streets, removing targeted parking spaces, has helped save lives in our most crowded and impacted neighborhoods. the changes that have taken place in the tenderloin, and there are more that are coming, have meant that people can walk down the street safely, that people are able to go to food pantries, that they have space to do so; that people who need testing are able to walk down the street safely or have safe outdoor spaces. the emergency measures on our streets are absolutely
9:56 pm
necessary and essential, and i think it's, as i said, incredible that we, during this obvious emergency, have had to spend so much time responding, that our agency is spending money and resources focusing on this peal rather than continuing to make essential changes on our street. so we absolutely need to move forward. and any further efforts to stall these projects would be both dangerous and irresponsible. so there is an emergency, and i think we should move forward, and i think it's incredible that so much time and energy and resources were spent on this to begin with. >> president yee: thank you, supervisor haney. i personally don't like the
9:57 pm
hearings -- let me back off. i'm -- there's always going to be differences of opinions of people, and i honor the system where people can appeal, and sometimes, we have cases where people can do better. in this case, i did not think it was necessary for the appellants to come forward with these. again, i agree with supervisor haney that although people disagree, this is not an emergency. you take people's lives so lightly and people talk about oh, people die or whatever, i mean, come on.
9:58 pm
this is ridiculous. i don't know why people would say that. and here we are, we can prevent something. so -- and -- and again, i respect the appeal process, but in this case, i will definitely be supporting that we -- in all throu three or four cases, i will be supporting the finding of the planning department. so supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president yee. and i just wanted to associate myself with your remarks and state the importance of ceqa appeals and the importance they play in our city and our state, but share your opinion of the
9:59 pm
appeals. i did adjust want to, before we move to the vote, address very briefly, since there was a question by ms. miles, that i recuse myself. i do not want to do, and i just want to clarify for the record, my resident is not within 500 feet of the two sites that are referenced in these appeals. and also, that the standard -- it is not any involvement with underlying projects of the city that would require someone to recuse themselves. i have not stated a position until now regarding these appeals, and i'm fully able to dispassionately express my ideas on this appeal. so i just want to clarify that for the record. thank you.
10:00 pm
>> president yee: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. i know that ceqa and due process is under attack, but we spent the time tonight -- maybe i wish i had saw the debate. probably not, but i think insofar as i have read the briefing papers, listened to the testimony, i completely agree with the previous comments of president yee, supervisor haney, supervisor hess t preston, and would be happy to make a motion, second a motion denying these appeals and -- or voting for denial of those appeals. so thank you for -- colleagues, for listening to this. it's part of what we do, and i think it's profoundly important
10:01 pm
that we all understand that, at the end of the day, we are the back stop for environmental n appeals, but all of these appeals do not meet the test. with that, i'm ready to make a motion or second a motion or vote for a motion. >> president yee: okay. why don't we go ahead and take items 60 to 63, which is the first of the four projects, and supervisor peskin, would you like to make a motion to approve item 61 and table items 62 and 63? >> supervisor peskin: mr. press, i would like to make -- mr. president, i would like to
10:02 pm
make a motion to approve 61 and table items 62 and 63. >> supervisor ronen: ronen, second. >> president yee: ronen second. okay. madam clerk, roll call, please. >> clerk: okay. on the motion to approve item 61 and table items 62 and 63 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay.
10:03 pm
so motion to approve 61 and table 62 and 63 is approved. supervisor haney, would you like to make a motion regarding 62 and 63? >> supervisor haney: sure. is it approved -- >> president yee: i'm sorry. i'm sorry. 64 through 67, which is to -- would you like to make a motion to approve item 65 and table items 66 and 67? >> supervisor haney: i'd like to make a motion to approve item 65 and table items 66 and 67. >> president yee: is there a second? >> supervisor ronen: second, ronen. >> president yee: second, ronen. madam clerk, roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to approve item 65 and table items 66 and 67 -- [roll call]
10:04 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: thank you. without objection, then, items 65 is approved and 66 and 67 are tabled. so let's take items 68 through 71. supervisor preston, would you like to make a motion to approve 68 and -- 69, i'm sorry -- 69 and table 70 and
10:05 pm
71? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> president yee: okay. is there a second? >> supervisor mandelman: second, mandelman. >> president yee: okay. second, supervisor mandelman. madam clerk, would you call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to approve 69 and table 70 and 71 -- [roll call]
10:06 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. so without objection, item 69 is tabled -- i mean, 69 is approved, and 70 and 71 are tabled. madam -- so we're going to go to item 72 to 75, which is our last of the four items. supervisor ronen, would you like to make a motion to approve item 73 and table 74 and 75? >> supervisor ronen: yes, so moved. >> president yee: okay. is there a second? >> supervisor walto >> supervisor peskin: second. >> president yee: okay. supervisor peskin. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to
10:07 pm
approve item 73 and table 74 and 75 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. then without objection, item 73 is approved, and items 74 and 75 are tabled. >> president yee: madam clerk, let's go to our committee reports. call the next item.
10:08 pm
>> clerk: item 76 was -- and 77 were considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on monday, sept 28, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. item 76 is a resolution supporting california state proposition 21, keep families in their homes on the november 3, 2020 ballot. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, call the roll. >> clerk: on item 76 -- [roll call]
10:09 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to item 77. >> clerk: item 77 was considered by the public safety and neighborhood services committee at a regular meeting on thursday, sept 24, 2020, at 10:00. 77 is a resolution determining that the issuance of a type 99 on sail general for special use liquor license to the st. joseph's arts foundation located at 1401 horse street will serve the public convenience or necessarily of the city, and requesting that the california department of alcoholic beverage control kboes conditions on t
10:10 pm
kboes -- close conditions on the issuance of the license. >> president yee: okay. madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. >> clerk: on item 77 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, the resolution is adopted. madam clerk, it's time to go to
10:11 pm
roll call for introductions. >> clerk: supervisor ronen is up first for new business. >> supervisor ronen: submit. >> clerk: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: submit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor steph othfani? >> supervisor stefani: submit. >> clerk: supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: colleagues, tonight, i am introducing legislation to oppose proposition 20, also known as the parole and d.n.a. initiative. i would like to thank my colleagues. prop 20 is funded by law enforcement and the prison industry that have been losing money as a result of california's criminal justice reform in the last decade.
10:12 pm
cri california previously rov overwhelmingly supported and passed two justice reform measures, proposition 7, in 2014, and prop 57, which gave incarcerated individuals convicted of certain nonviolent offenses an opportunity to earn early release. both of these propositions led to a 25% drop in incarceration while statewide crime rates remain at a historic low, and new crime prevention programs were launched as a result of these reforms. prop 20 will undo all this work by reducing the threshold for felony threats which transforms a number of offenses from
10:13 pm
misdemeanors to potential felonies by repealing parts of prop 47. prop 20 will prevent some people from earning points for good behavior or repealing parts that work. prop 20 will potentially return people to jail automatically for parole violations and require d.n.a. collection for certain misdemeanors. prevention should be the focus of our justice resources, an intention for both public [inaudible] and public safety. california still spends more than $11 billion on prisons, one that is far more than other critical public investment, such as hospitals. prop 20, if passed, will increase california's spending on prisons by tens of millions
10:14 pm
of dollars annually. incarceration disproportionately impacts black and latinx communities. one in three black men born today can expect to be incarcerated in their lifetime compared to 1 in 6 latino men and 1 in 17 white men. similarly, 1 in 17 black women born in 2001 can expect to be incarcerated in their life compared to 1 in 111 white women. at a time when we are trying to recover from covid-19, physical and community and health impacts, we should not be supporting a proposal that seeks to increase incarceration
10:15 pm
and increase costs to the state. instead, we must continue to invest in our communities. this resolution, if passed, will formally declare san francisco's opposition to prop 20 and urge other municipalities to oppose, as well. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor walton. supervisor yee? >> president yee: yes, thank you, madam clerk. supervisor walton, can you add me as a cosponsor for your resolution? >> supervisor walton: thank you, president yee. >> president yee: submit. >> clerk: did you submit, mr. president? >> president yee: yes. >> clerk: okay. thank you. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: submit. >> clerk: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, madam clerk. i have two items. the first is legislation that
10:16 pm
arises directly out of the public integrity review of the controller that was released this week, which included a recommendation to eliminate the egregious pay to play risk in city government that have come to light during these investigations. the law i'm introducing, the legislation that i'm introducing will prohibit department heads from seeking solicitations from people for land use contracts or other contracts against the city. there was an explicit statement that in exchange for mr. nuru's assistance in steering contracts to mr. bovis, mr. bovis would pay to city
10:17 pm
departments of choice. the worst part is these shake downs happen without any regulation, completely behind closed doors, and are ripe for complete unethical behavior. we right now, our department heads who are much closer to the contract and permanent decisions that often happen behind closed doors are completely off the hook for contracts that they make on their behalf. the controller's report notes that the practice of mr. nuru soliciting funds from
10:18 pm
interested parties or doing business with the city creates a perceived pay to play relationship. these unregulated fundraising transactions have created a situation where contractors can access business with the city or receive preferential treatment for donations given rather than the work that was done. this was a massive disserve to san francisco and a blatant violation of the public trust. this will prohibit department heads who are very close to the control of contracted decisions from making decisions for donations to third parties at their department head's behest. i want to thank supervisor
10:19 pm
peskin for cosponsoring, the ethics commission and staff for their insight and partnership, and the controller and his office for their incredible work with the public integrity reviews, and city attorney andrew shen. i'm introducing a resolution on proposition 6. california has historically demonstrated leadership in advancing social equity issues and yet, with the passage of prop 209, california became just one of nine states banning affirmative action. this had a devastating impact on the public procurement process of state and local governments as it related to support for and intentional
10:20 pm
overcoming of systemic racism for disenfranchised minority requests. black and latino children and youth in particular face unique challenges that often limit their access to high quality schools and good paying jobs, even when compared to white children that come from families with similar income levels. a study released by e.j.s. found that passing prop 209 resulted in a loss of $820 million per year in contracts with the state of california. bypassing prop 16, we'll be sending a strong message that
10:21 pm
californians are not only against racist policies but are in support of race conscious measures that can target opportunities to the communities and the people that most need them. prop 16 has very broad support, and i hope that we will all join this very large coalition by having the city and county of san francisco formally enforce proposition 16, opportunities for all, on the november 3, 2020 ballot. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor manndelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i would like to be added as a cosponsor to supervisor haney's proposition 16. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: colleagues,
10:22 pm
i'm introducing a resolution to [inaudible] our city has implemented to help our neighborhood businesses navigate the unprecedented challenges on confronting them. even with the phased partial reopening of different types of businesses this fall, which will expand with our state's move into the orange tier today, neighborhoods and businesses will face monumental challenges in recovering and reopening for years to come. since its launch in june, the shared spaces program has created a lifeline for over 1300 individual neighborhood businesses with approved
10:23 pm
permits, and many more through 26 shared spaces street closures so far. out here in the sunset, the program has been extremely successful, supporting over 60 neighborhood businesses to expand to outdoor dining, shopping, and curbside pick up, and with thriving street openings on irving at 20, taraval at 46, and on 37 avenue, where our new outer sunset farmers market and mercantile launched very successfully during the pandemic. this is important for the small business program through speedy review and timelines, technical assistance, and high quality customer service, through equitable participation in the program, prioritizing low-income communities and
10:24 pm
non-english speaking communiti communities. i'd like to thank the small business commission and especially president sharky laguana for their advocacy for this shared spaces program and the resolution that they adopted in july that served as the basis for this board of supes resolution. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, let me just start by saying that i would like to adjourn this evening's board meeting for the former zoning administrator of san francisco who served for 37 years in that capacity, robert passmore, and
10:25 pm
to his wife carolyn, and his children, grandchildren, our condolences. he was truly fair. he adjudicated every case with compassion and knowledge of the code, and robert passmore, may you rest in peace. i would also like to thank the individuals from the recreation and parks department. as about 8:00 p.m. on saturday evening, i received a text message, saying that coit tower had a leak at the fifth floor. i hustled up there not to many minutes later to all of the folks from rec and park and their rangers, mark and vince
10:26 pm
to daniel and raymond and jack and john for getting all of the water out of that building, turning the leak off. it was incredible, and those incredible w.p.a.-era murals done under the tutelage of diego rivera. i can't thank you enough. finally, i want to concur with supervisor haney and commend him for working on our resolutions with the controller having to do with the corruption in public works, and i'm a cosponsor of supervisor haney's legislation. but i'd like to take it a step further, and i want to thank the controller and the city
10:27 pm
administrator for engaging with me and my staff the last few days about totally turning the page and getting rid of the incentive to bad behavior and corruption by completely terminating the relationships between friends and organizations and individual departments that are charged, as we saw, in the controller's report with funding from permittees and contractees even if they were strictest sources. there's a better way of doing this by creating a department of philanthropy and donations and bequests to the city. so i look forward to working with supervisor haney, the mayor's office, the controller's office, and the city administrator's office, and with that, the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: submit. >> clerk: and mr. president,
10:28 pm
seeing no names on the roster, i believe that concludes the introduction of new business. >> president yee: okay. let's go to public comment at this point. >> clerk: okay. operations, at this time, the board of supervisors is going to hear from members of the public on general public comment on their policy perspectives. i want to just report, mr. president, that the interpreters had to leave about an hour ago. we appreciated their service here today. i want to just make sure that members of the public know that there is no commenting on items that have already been subject to public comment at committee or during a hearing at today's board meeting. and with that, operations, can we hear from the first speaker. welcome, callers. you'll have up to two minutes. >> hello?
10:29 pm
>> clerk: mr. pillpow. >> surprise. mr. pillpow. all right. so stuff happens. i'm not talking about the things that we already discussed. i'm actually calling about the in memory -- memoriam. bob passmore was a good guy, and i wanted to say that. >> clerk: thank you, mr. pillpow. okay, operations, let's hear
10:30 pm
from the next caller. >> okay. can you hear me? can everyone hear me? i'm calling tonight to alert the san francisco board of supervisors that you need to pass immediately resolution 201-072 condemning homophobic and antisemite attacks against senator scott wiener. i must say tonight, for a president who has decided not to condemn white supremacy, as a white man, it would be my honor to give my life if necessary to my jewish relatives and friends as well as the african americans.
10:31 pm
i also wear the cloth of our nation. our president's failure to lead has become a national security threat. i ask you to answer this country's call and to pass this resolution, and make it explicit to supervisor stefani, when you attack terrorist organizations like the n.r.a. and white supremacists, your country is going to stand with you. it has to stop, and when voices like yours speak up, i will, too. i want to thank you from the bottom of my heart, supervisor
10:32 pm
stefani, for your work against white supremacy and against the n.r.a. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> good evening. i'm zach in district 6. i wanted to speak in favor of also item 80, the resolution condemning the threats and the attacks of senator wiener. i was particularly appalled that some members made next week. he put forward several rights for legislation to aprovide for equal treatment in the justice system. as a result, he and his family have been subject to over 1,000 death threats against him and tens of thousands of homophobic
10:33 pm
and antisemitic threats promoted by a member of our national cabinet and a member of the president's family. people do watching and were paying attention when members of this board -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. okay, operations, let's hear from the next caller, please.
10:34 pm
hello, caller? >> operator: madam clerk, that completes the queue. >> clerk: mr. president? >> president yee: okay. seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, let's call for the items for adopt without committee reference agenda, items 80 through 88. >> clerk: these measures were introduced for adoption without committee reference. a unanimous vote is required for adoption of these resolutions today. any supervisor may require any resolution to go to committee, otherwise, you can ask to sever an item and have it heard separately. >> president yee: okay. are there any supervisors that would like to sever any items? supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president yee. i'd like to sever items 84 and
10:35 pm
85. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i'd like to sever items 80 and 86, please. >> president yee: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: the item i wanted to sever was covered. >> president yee: okay. for the remainder of the items, 82, 83, 87, and 88, madam clerk, call the roll. >> clerk: and i think 81, as well. >> president yee: correct. 81, also. >> clerk: on those items -- [roll call]
10:36 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. so these resolutions, and the motions are approved -- resolutions are adopted. madam clerk, let's go back to item number 80. >> clerk: item 80 is a resolution to condemn the antisemitic and homophobic
10:37 pm
attacks on senator scottine irrelevant and urging social media platforms to protect their users from hate -- scott wiener and urging social media platforms to protect their users from hate speech. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee. i have some minor amendments to this item. and as i said last week, many of us have been the subject of hate speech, whether it is antisemitic, whether it is misogynystic, whether it's homophob homophobic, we've all been a part of that. what senator wiener has been subject to is extraordinary, and what i was trying to
10:38 pm
articulate last week is we should all be against that. hate against our elected officials should not in any way not condoned and should be condemned. but what i want to articulate this evening is there are media, facebook and twitter, that have been forums for that hate, and we have to acknowledge that, as well. to that end, colleagues, my staff have circulated to you a very minor change in the law of the title that sets forth that we are also condemning social media platforms for failing to intervene and protect their users from hate speech, and at page 1, line 6, i here by
10:39 pm
respectfully request and would like to make a motion to insert a whereas clause that as whereas, san francisco's national identity as a bastion of progressive values and diversity of elected representation that have historically made its officials the targets of racist, misogynistic threats and insert whereas the san francisco bay area is the hometown of several bay area tech companies that operate largely unregulated social media flat forms, including facebook, youtube, and twitter, that use algorithms to target user activity but have done little to crack down on hate speech and doxing by right wing
10:40 pm
abusers of these high profile information sites which have caus caused irreparable damage to communities of concern. and i would like to insert after, and condemns these social media flat forms for failing to protect their members from hate speech. and be it further reed that the san francisco board of supervisors directed the clerk of the board to send a copy of this resolution to the chief financial officers of facebook, youtube, and instagram upon final adoption. the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, i would like to confirm these nonsubstantive amendments to you, colleagues, and join in
10:41 pm
the condemning of incendiary language by people such as ted cruz and rush limbaugh. >> president yee: okay. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president yee. i just wanted to state for the record that, you know, i said it before, that i won't pass up an opportunity to denounce homophobia and antisemitism. and after learning what happened to our state senator, who was acting to protect our
10:42 pm
lgbt community. i do believe we should stand together in the face of hate, and the best way to do that is to pass this resolution. on the whole, the amendments set forth by supervisor peskin do not diminish my original goal, so i have no objection to them. thank you. >> president yee: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, president yee. i just quickly and definitely i'll support the amendments, as well. i just wanted to say quickly thank you to supervisor stefani for bringing this resolution forward. i just want to say very clearly that i condemn, and i know that we all condemn the violent homophobia, the antisemitism that's been directed at our state senator. it is terrifying, horrendous, the heat thate that has been at him.
10:43 pm
i'm sure you've known people -- i've had friends and acquaintances who came to me and said what is this? so i appreciate adding an element of the connection to the irresponsibility of our social media companies in allowing this hate to be distributed on their platforms. but over and above all, without question, full stop, we all should condemn the hate that's been directed at senator wiener, which has been unlike anything that i've seen in a long time. so again, thank you, supervisor stefani. i send this to the clerk, but i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> president yee: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank
10:44 pm
you, president yee. i just wanted to concur with a lot of the remarks that have been made. i think we're aware of just how over the top the attacks on senator wiener have been. i did want to report back, since i raised it last week, as i said last week, my only concern was around timing, giving a pending race in which senator wiener is a candidate. i did have a chance to confer with city attorney who assured me that -- that this type of resolution is appropriate, but i also think it's appropriate for us all to look at the timing of these things. i do think that not ascribing anything to the timing of this resolution with respect to that race, but i just -- i think that as we approach balts dropping in political races --
10:45 pm
ballots dropping in political races, it's important to exercise care in what we brought forward. but i certainly appreciate all of the contents of this rez lieutenant govern -- resolution, as well, and all of the amendments, and i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> president yee: thank you. i'm glad that it seems like all of us will stand firm, and i always feel like i want to stand firm in condemning people that spread hate, and to anybody, in particular our colleagues in the elected world. and it's appropriate for me to always support resolutions like this to continue to show our -- our intolerance for people who -- like the ones that are attacking our individuals.
10:46 pm
i personally would have supported the resolution last week as it was, in terms of what it was trying to do in terms of us standing firm, saying this is not what san francisco is about, and we should never tolerate people, the things that are happening to senator wiener. however, the amendments that are being offered today does strengthen the original resolution, so i'm glad this is happening, but i would have supported the original one. so thank you very much, and everybody really working together and standing firm for what we believe in. i think we're voting on the amendments. roll call on the amendments. >> clerk: on the amendments to item 80 -- [roll call]
10:47 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. so the resolution is adopted unanimously -- or the motion to make amendments are -- passes.
10:48 pm
madam clerk, let's take a roll call on the amended resolution. >> clerk: on the resolution as amended -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. so the resolution as amended is adopted. madam clerk, call number 84. >> clerk: item 84 is a resolution recognizing oct-1,
10:49 pm
2020 as korean chuseok day and honoring the korean center for its contributions to the korean american community in the city and county of san francisco. >> president yee: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, this day is one of the most important and widely celebrated holidays in korean culture, and honoring it today is a tribute to the korean community which has contributed immeasurably to the city and county of san francisco. no organizations has done more than the efforts of the korean center to keep chuseok day
10:50 pm
thriving. they have been an invaluable support for everyone in the city, i want to call out their work for underserved immigrant communities. the korean center has been providing meal delivery and critical language access programming to korean speaking residents, so they have access to the same public health care systems that we all do. thanks to the korean american community and the korean center for their decades of support and best wishes to you all
10:51 pm
during chuseok day. thank you. >> president yee: please add me as a cosponsor. >> clerk: i'll make a note of that. >> president yee: okay. roll call, please. >> clerk: on item 84 -- [roll call]
10:52 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes, and we certainly will. thank you. >> president yee: okay. so the resolution is adopted. madam clerk, please call item number 85. >> clerk: item 85 is a resolution condemning antiarmenian acts of hate and supporting san francisco's armmenian community. >> president yee: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president yee. >> supervisor stefani: [inaudible] were subject to three violent acts of hate in less than three months.
10:53 pm
sfpd special investigations unit opened an investigation into this incident shortly afterwards. less than two months later, sfpd and the fire department responded to a fire in jordan park. this fire destroyed sunday school classrooms, and church and school records. two weeks after the fire, the k.z.b. school was targeted again as police responded to the sound of gunshots outside the school. if anyone has any information about these incidents, please contact the sfpds anonymous tip line at 415-775-4444. and thank you to president yee
10:54 pm
for your amendment -- i think, president yee, i'll let you say that before -- i'll let you speak to that. i just want to say that these actions have no place in san francisco. and thank you to everyone who came out to the armenian church, and thank you, president yee. >> president yee: so we have some amendments added earlier to add a resolved clause in calling for a thorough investigation from attorney general xavier becerra. schools are starting to reopen, and i cannot imagine the fear in families and educators,
10:55 pm
showing that this sanctuary was targeted. these are yet more hateful acts of violence here in san francisco against our armenian community, and these acts are getting more brazen. san francisco stands with our armenian community, and we must bring whoever is involved to justice. we must look out for one another. this cannot be tolerated against any of our neighbors. colleagues, i would like to include in the title a resolve clause urging an investigation from the california attorney general. in the first whereas clause, we also offer an amendment to strike out parkmerced and include on brotherhood way. can we have a second for this amendment? seconded by supervisor peskin. madam clerk, please call the
10:56 pm
roll on the amendments. >> clerk: i -- >> president yee: supervisor peskin, did i want to say something? pesk psk i ju>> supervisor pes want to say as a student who studied the holocaust in the 21st century against the armenian people, this cannot happen in san francisco. when supervisor stefani and i appeared with senator wiener and mayor breed in jordan park, this -- this -- sfrifgs san
10:57 pm
francisco is not a place where this can happen. san francisco is a tolerant society, but we do not tolerate anything like this. i want to say to our brothers and sisters in the armenian community, we truly have your back. >> president yee: thank you. so, madam clerk, please call the roll on the amendments? >> clerk: on the amendments to item 85 -- [roll call]
10:58 pm
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. without objection, then, the amendments are accepted. madam clerk, please call the roll on the amended resolution. >> clerk: on item 85 as amended -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes.
10:59 pm
>> president yee: okay. i'm sorry. was that the amendments? i'm sorry. i'm getting tired. >> clerk: that was 85 as amended. >> president yee: okay. so 85 as amended passes. 86. please call 86, please. >> clerk: item 86 is a motion to waive certain provisions of board rule 3.37 and calling for the land use and transportation committee a committee of the whole for an emergency ordinance to extend commercial eviction protections. >> president yee: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president yee, and colleagues. and thank you, president yee, for accommodating my request. out of an buabundance of cauti, i introduced this emergency
11:00 pm
ordinance set forth earlier on the calendar as item 43 to extend commercial eviction protections in the event that that was not extended by the state, and i really want to thank my staff, lee hepner and ultimately, governor newsom did, in fact, extend the preemption of state law through march 31, 2021, which was followed by the mayor's action today to prevent the eviction of small businesses at least through the end of november this year, which would be subject to extension, and i assume that will be extended. so those actions by the governor and the mayor have rendered this emergency ordinance unnecessary, and i'd like to table this item 86 and table items2