>> president walton: good afternoon. welcome to the march 23, 2021 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madam clerk, please call the roll. [roll call]

mr. president, you have a quorum. >> president walton: thank you. the san francisco board of supervisors is acknowledges that we are on the unseated land of the ramaytush ohlone. they have not forgotten their responsibilities of caretakers for this place. whereas for all people who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors,

elders of the ramaytush ohlone community. colleagues place your right hand over your heart and join me in the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] on behalf of the board of supervisors i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgov tv. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> clerk: yes, mr. president before i begin, i will ask

lornea please turn off your camera feed. board members participate in the board member through video conference. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and invites public participation in the following ways. send us your written correspondence and we'll make it part of the legislative file. if you like to watch the meeting, it is being live streamed at www.sfgovtv.org.

the number is streaming on your screen. it's 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt, you may enter the meeting i.d., 187 075 7779 press pound twice and then you'll be able to listen to the meeting. that is meeting access 101. now just a few words pertaining to the agenda content. that will be eligible for public comment. today there is one special order public hearing notice to begin no earlier than 3:00 p.m.

public testimony will be taken on the merits of the matter. i'm referring to items 19-22. that's the hearing on the appeal of conditional use organization approval for 592nd avenue. the items that are not on this agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. all other agenda content has had public comment requirement satisfied in committee. i want to point out that no earlier than 4:30 p.m. will the special agenda be called. the board scheduled a special joint session with the san francisco public utilities commission to convene in closed session to discuss litigation with the gas and gas company.

we have interpreters with us today. they know their craft well and they will assist speakers with their language interpretation needs. i ask each and interpreter to please introduce yourself and with the services that you're able to provide. welcome. >> thank you, madam clerk. [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language]

>> clerk: if you are experiencing any trouble accessing this meeting, please call the clerk's office. we can someone stand big to assist you. that completes my comments. >> president walton: thank you. colleagues, before we get started, just friendly reminder to mute your microphones when you're not speaking so we can avoid audio feedback. we do not have any minutes to approve today. let's go to unfinished business, item number 1. >> clerk: an ordinance to amend the business and tax regulations code to extend through fiscal year 2021 through '22, the

temporary suspension of the application of the business registration and fee requirements for transportation network company drivers and taxi drivers. >> president walton: thank you. can we have a roll call please? [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, this ordinance is

finally passed unanimously. please call items 2 and 3 together. >> clerk: items 2 and 3 comprise an two ordinances pertaining to 542-550 howard street. item 2 is an amendment to the planning code to rezone and reclassify a portion of the 542-550 howard street project site. item 3 is an ordinance to improve the development agreement between the city parcel f owner, l.l.c. >> president walton: please call the roll for items 2 and 3. [roll call vote]

there are 10 ayes 1 no with supervisor peskin in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you very much. it item passes. would you please call items 4 and 5? >> clerk: items 4 and 5 -- >> president walton: my apologies, item 4. >> clerk: an ordinance to appropriate $220 million from one or more series refunding general obligation bond and placing such amount on

controller's reserve. >> president walton: thank you. please call the roll call. [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. please call item number 5. >> clerk: a resolution to

approve the issuance and sale of 220 million aggregate principle amount of city general obligation refunding bond. series 2021-r1 and city general obligation refunding bonds series 2021-r2 to refund certain outstanding general obligation bonds to the city. >> president walton: thank you. please call the roll on item 5. [roll call vote]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection this ordinance is passed on first reading. please call items 6 and 7 together. >> clerk: comprised two resolutions that authorize office the district attorney two grants from the state c.d.i. or california department of insurance. item 6 authorizes $316,000 grant from the state and item 7 authorizes $928,000 from the state in worker's compensation insurance both for the grant periods july 2020 through june 30, 2021. >> president walton: thank you. please call the roll for items 6 and 7. [roll call vote]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: please call item 8. >> clerk: to approve agreement

between color health inc. for end-to-end community covid-19 testing services for approximately $52.2 million from april 6, 2021 through march 31, 2022. >> president walton: please call the roll. [roll call vote].

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call item number 9. >> clerk: resolution to authorize public works to accept and eextend increased amount of approximately $226,000 for a total $3 million grant amount from the united states department of transportation federal highway administration, federal emergency relief program to fund the construction of the public works oceana sea boulevard term of september 23, 2019 through june 30, 2025. >> president walton: please call the roll. [roll call vote]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call the next item. >> clerk: item 10 is a resolution to authorize the airport commission to accept and extend one or more grants in the amount of up to approximately $46.5 million plus additional amounts up to 15% of the original grant amount that may be offered from the federal aviation administration including up to approximately $40.5 million for certain general airport purposes and up to approximately $5.9 million to

provide financial relief to eligible airport concession for a period of up to four years from acceptance. >> president walton: please call the roll on item 10. [roll call vote]. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: this resolution is adopted

unanimously. please call item number 11. >> clerk: item 11 this is an ordinance to extend the deadline to pay business registration fees certain waste and measure fees and point of sale station fees billed by the tax collector. >> president walton: thank you. please call the roll. [roll call vote]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection this ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously. please call item number 12. >> clerk: ordinance to amend the planning code to correct and clarify administrative and planning code amendments approved in ordinance number 296-18 which gave central south of market plan to restore modifications regarding low income affordable housing. to amend open space height limit apparent mass reduction, lot coverage, p.d.r. replacement and development impact fee waivers and reduction provisions to affirm the ceqa determination and to make the appropriate

findings. >> president walton: thank you. please call the roll on item number 12. [roll call vote] >> clerk: sorry, there's an echo. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes.

>> president walton: this ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously. before we call the next item, could you please turn off your camera if you are not a member of the board of supervisors or not the madam clerk. director chu -- let's go on on o item 13. >> clerk: a resolution to urge the implementation of three recommendations in the october 2020 economic recovery task force report that the city provide high quality computers to vulnerable populations, bridge the digital divide with affordable connectivity and internet service and build the technology capacity of new users small businesses and nonprofits and to urge the department of

technology to review the city's effort over the past 20 years to close the digital divide and to provide the board with a written estimate of the cost of implementation. >> president walton: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. i want to say brief remarks on this. appreciate the conversation that we had in committee. really wanted to highlight that even at the heart of the technological revolution, in a city like san francisco, one out of eight san franciscan don't have access, adequate access to the internet. even if they do, there's many barriers in the neighborhoods that they live in. high quality access. this has been so underscored so much more in this year of distance learning. we've heard from many families that could not participate in distance learning because of the digital divide. now more than ever, we really wanted to move this conversation

forward. i want to thank the department of technology for helping to coordinate the many different departments that came and participated in the conversations very thoughtful. i want to thank the private service providers for participating. we are going to have follow-up. we are going to move this conversation forward. we're going to do everything we can to bridge the digital divide for 150,000 san franciscans that don't have access. some of that -- some of those families live in s.r. o.s. some live in affordable housing, many live inover crowded housing situation and don't have access to the internet. unified school district did everything they could to help get kids test or learning hubs. they did everything they could. there were many children and families that didn't have access even outside the conversation of

the school system. we're going to move the conversation forward. there's no silver bullet. 5g is obviously part of that conversation. many people want to work with smartphones. i want to thank everyone for participating in what i thought was a really fruitful conversation. we'll come back with some real concrete policy recommendations for this body. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: i wanted to be added as the co-sponsor. thank you. >> president walton: madam clerk, please call the roll. >> supervisor ronen: can i also be added as co-sponsor? >> supervisor preston: myself as well.

>> supervisor safai: add me too. >> president walton: thank you so much. anyone else? please call the roll for item 13. [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. this resolution is adopted

unanimously. please call item number 14. >> clerk: ordinance to amend the administrative code to change the composition of the family violence council and extend the sunset date to may 1, 2024. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: since 27 2007 our council included the mayor, board of supervisors, law enforcement agency, department of public health, child second agencies, domestic vince prevention agencies and more. it has worked to achieve three primary goals. first to coordinate services between the domestic violence elder abuse and child abuse communities.

second, to analyze trends in data related to family violence in san francisco, statewide and across the united states and third, to advise the board of supervisors, the mayor and court about these trends and related issues. every year, family violence council issues a report on these trends. in the most recent report, key findings were as follows. there are clear racial disparities including child abuse, elder abuse. reported family violence disproportionately impact black and latinx populations. family violence disproportionately affects women and girls. the use of weapons, especially firearms and domestic violence incidents is on the rise. there remains a significant need for shelter for survivors of family violence in san francisco with 80% of clients of our city service providers being turned away from emergency shelter.

this was in the period just before pandemic struck. sadly, over the course of the past year, calls to crises lines have spiked our service providers have been under tremendous drain. it's been my honor to serve as board of supervisors representative to the family violence council and it's been really encouraging to see all the work that the member agencies have been doing. as of today, the family violence council set to expire on may 1, 2021. this legislation would extend the sun set date of the family violence council to may 1st of this year to may 1, 2024. it will calling out the disproportionate impact family violence on people of color in san francisco. required that the family violence council analyze by race, ethnicity, sex, gender

identity, age and sexual orientation. require that family violence council collect feedback and recommendations from the communities most impacted by family violence at three community members appointed to the council by this steering committee, where total of six community seats. although that might sound a lot of more positions to the family violence council, we do not have a problem making quorum. it touches all communities especially communities of color in san francisco. it's more important that the body is respond to resident needs. i would like to extend special thanks to the director and office of racial equity and rules committee for their

support. thank you also to my incredible legislative aid sam bennett for assisting in this legislation and on the family violence council. i hope to have your support. thank you. >> supervisor chan: thank you. i had an opportunity to vote in support of this item in the rules committee. i missed the opportunity to add my name as a co-sponsor. it's because, i want to thank supervisor stefani for her leadership on this important item. we find families and children because of the distance learning and pandemic, they are isolated in their homes. the traditional way where schools and other connection be able to identify abuse for the

families and children now no longer in existence because of the distance learning and because of the pandemic and shelter-in-place. the task force work is going to be very critical in the next couple of years. help us to identify ways to really assist the families and children in identifying possible abuse and how can we really help them out. to see that this critical work is going to continue in 2024 is crucial. i would like to be a co-sponsor. thank you. >> president walton: thank you supervisor chan. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much president walton. i would start by acknowledging and thanking supervisor stefani for your tireless unrelenting fierce work on behalf of women and children and stopping violence, particularly gun vince

in our society. you have been such a fierce and courageous voice in this area of work. because we're friends, i'm somebody who experienced domestic violence as a child. i can tell you it is so wonderful to have adults paying attention and seeking to have the systemic change that we need so that families can get the resources that can prevent abuse, that can prevent folks from getting out of hand and spiraling out of control. our investment in making sure that the data is followed and that best practices, especially towards prevention and the things that worked, in helping folks learn resolution skills,

deescalation, ways to deal with stress in a healthy way rather than resorting to violence. those things make a huge difference towards the success of children it's much less expensive in the long run when we equip families with those skills rather than deal with outcome of family violence. please add me as a co-sponsor. i'm grateful to you supervisor stefani for your fierce advocacy on this issue. thank you. >> president walton: madam clerk please call the roll on item 14. [roll call vote]

clerk there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: this ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously. please call item 15. >> clerk: an ordinance to amend the administrative code to allow contracting parties that offer point health benefit plans at the san francisco international airport to charge covered employees the limited share of premium costs on more expensive plans to clarify who must be covered by health benefit plans

that are offered and to adjust the date by which such health benefit plans must be in effect. >> president walton: please call the roll on item 15. [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, this ordinance is

passed on first reading unanimously. please call item 16. >> clerk: a motion to amend the board's rule of order by amending rule 3.25, 3.26 and 3.21 to establish the youth young adult and families committee. mr. president, this item does require an affirmative vote of eight members of the board. >> president walton: thank you, so much. it is exciting for us to have a committee dedicated to making sure that we prioritize our young people and actually are able to make decisions as a body to do that for young people and our families here at the board of supervisors. i'm excited about the work of this committee and all we will be able to do together for our young people and our families. i do see supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you.

i'm so sorry. i'm dealing with computer issues. i wanted to give a little bit more context behind this hearing. these are the remarks that i made at the the rules committee and you want to thank the rules committee and president walton for supporting this effort. the proposed motion would establish the youth adults and family committee which will be brand new standing committee within the board of supervisors that will serve as a place for legislative and policy discussions focused on addressing the comprehensive needs for san franciscan children youth and their families. as it is, san francisco faces a sad reality that is home to fewer children than any other major city in the united states. with families fleeing the public

school system in record numbers and crazy high housing cost, board of supervisors deserve a committee that can dig into -- in partnership with the university commission, and other youth focused entities. we have benefited from the prest on education over the last year, select committees they are only authorized to host public hearing. they lack formal authority of review and fiscal items. this motion will establish a new permanent youth and adults been the board of supervisors which will be empowered to hear resolutions, ordinances and fiscal items that have a direct and exclusive impact on the

interested children youth and their families. this committee will focus on leveraging city resources and support to compliment the educational mission of sfusd and addressing the unmet needs that children and families continue to face in accessing housing, healthcare, transportation and employment and other essential services that impact them. this committee will also will call on the board of supervisors to act. we are in discussions with the commission about the possibility of hosting joint hearings, etcetera. with this new permanent committee, we as a city will be better position to lead new legislative initiatives that are responsible for the most

pressing issues facing san francisco families. we will be able to rebuild san francisco into a place where children and families can live with dignity and thrive. i want to thank my office for all the work on this as well as the clerk office to not only lend their incredible expertise but made it a committee that can practically function and not overwhelm the clerk's office. i wanted to thank you both for partnering to get there. i hope to have your support. thank you so much. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president walton. thank you to supervisor ronen for your fierce advocacy on behalf of children and families in our city and also for your

creativity and making sure that we have the most efficient way to have ideas and initiatives. i like to be added as a co-sponsor as well. thank you so much. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you president walton. i want to echo few of the comments supervisor ronen made. very excited to serve on this committee. as the district that has the most children at sf unified school district. so many look to this body. i appreciate the hard work that supervisor melgar and supervisor ronen have done to really ring the alarm in so many different ways for our children and families. i look forward to serving on this committee, being part of the thoughtful conversations and

solutions and policy ideas that will come out of it. >> president walton: supervisor mar? >> commissioner mar: thank you president walton. i like to be added as a co-sponsor and thank supervisor ronen for her leadership on this as well as school reopening and all other issues related to families. thank you. >> president walton: thank you. madam clerk, please call the roll for 16. [roll call vote]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, in motion is approved unanimously. please call item 17. >> clerk: a motion to approve the mayor's nomination for the reappointment of sharon lai to the municipal transportation agency board of directors term ending march 1, 2025. >> president walton: please call the roll for item 17. [roll call vote]

>> president walton: this motion is approved unanimously. please call item 18. >> clerk: a motion to appoint bernita burge, jon jacobo, has been ming how and rem alex

lantsberg, terms ending decembe. to the housing stability fund oversight board. >> president walton: please call the roll for item 18. my apologies, supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you. i was waiting for supervisor preston to speak. i wanted to say that i have spoken to supervisor preston about this appointment. i support the spirit of this body and the need for prop i to foster like innovation and a new -- come up with new tools for social housing and affordable

housing production. i'm disappointed as the composition of this body because it is very heavily male identify skewed. i want to make a point saying that 70% of our nation people living in poverty are women. women are 35% more likely to live in poverty than men. housing in our city is an issue of not having enough money to afford the rent. in looking at new solutions, for how we're going to structure new programs, how we're going to do things differently and come up with social housing solutions, i think it's really important that we have gender equity in the decision-making in the bodies that we are putting forward. we are creating this group from scratch. i was hoping to have that representation. i have spoken to supervisor

preston about it. at some point, we maybe able to add more members to this body. i do believe we will have some more balance staffing to this body. i don't want to be ungrateful for supervisor preston for his great work on this issue. for that, i'm really grateful. i want to make sure that we are thoughtful and mindful of gender equity issues and representation. i think that the voices of women in non-binary identified people are -- do bring something substantive to the table. housing, i have been in affordable housing in this town for long enough to be able to tell you that lot of these spaces, especially around policy and development, are not usually spaces occupied by women. i think it is to our detriment.

thank you. i will be voting in favor. >> president walton: thank you supervisor melgar. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you. i wanted to thank chair peskin and the rules committee for the hearing and the thoughtful analysis of applicants and recommendations. i think all of us were struck by the level of interest in this body. which is really encouraging. this is hopefully the space where innovative ideas are coming from. i wanted to thank supervisor melgar for her input around gender balance and i want to thank supervisor safai for his input.

i think we have highly qualified folks who bring a lot of expertise. i will say specifically on the gender issue that supervisor melgar raised, i want to reiterate i appreciate the input. i want to note that we have all along requested that one of the pieces -- we've been working closely over the months with lydia, who is an expert on affordable housing. we're looking at a board that will be six men four women and

one non-binary individual. as the body was introduced originally with 15 members. we were advised to reduce that to make it more manageable. we are open to thinking about whether given the level of interest, we might want to expand that. if we do, certainly we would want to honor the request and suggestions around increasing the number of women on this body. thank you, colleagues what has been constructive input and excited to move forward with this body. >> president walton: thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, claire. thank you supervisor preston for acknowledging the conversation that we had. i wanted to say on the record, as a former housing authority

commissioner, working with the housing authority, knowing that probably has the largest composition of people living in affordable housing in the entire city. some of our longest term residents and with the great diversity. i wish i had caught this earlier. i would have reached out earlier and we would have had that conversation earlier. looks like this staggered appointments, some that expire in a year, some that expire in two years. maybe there's an opportunity even if there's not an expansion, that any individuals that wanted to make room or further conversations with you to address that. i think it will be really important to have a voice public housing on this oversight committee. i said my peace. you heard me. i appreciate it. i appreciate all the hard work

you put into the campaign to get this passed and also to exercise and put this body in motion. thank you, mr. chair. >> president walton: thank you supervisor safai. madam clerk, please all the roll on item number 18. [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes.

>> president walton: this motion is approved unanimously. madam clerk, it is not quite 3:00. please call item 23. >> clerk: items 23 and 24 were attended by the budget appropriations committee on tuesday march 23, 2021 and forwarded at committee report. item 23 was recommended as a committee report. it is an ordinance to appropriate approximately $10 million from property tax revenue to the mayor's office of housing and community development for rent release under the rent resolution and relief fund and approximately $10 million for the acquisition creation and operation of affordable housing under the housing stability fund in fiscal year 2020-2021. >> president walton: thank you so much.

>> supervisor preston: thank you president walton and colleagues consistent with the intent of the voters of san francisco, i ask for your support for allocating the initial funding for prop i revenue to the rent resolution and relief fund and to the housing stability fund. i to want to thank all five members of the budget and appropriations committee. supervisor than knee -- haney, mar, walton and safai for their co-sponsorship and supervisor melgar co-sponsor as well. i want to thank the committee members for moving in the full board today with their positive recommendation. i spoken to this item a few times in committee. i will keep my remarks short. put simply, i believe we can take a really historic step today toward housing justifies -- justice by approving this

item. voters in san francisco overwhelmingly voted to demand more from the wealthiest real estate investors. today the board has the opportunity to fulfill the voter's mandate and this board's prior commitment by directing this money to help tenants and small property owners struggling with back rent debt and to fund permanently affordable social housing. colleagues, i ask for your support today. i'm looking forward to keeping this program moving. this is sorely needed and i appreciate your support. thank you. >> president walton: thank you. i want to thank the budget committee and budget and appropriations committee for working on this and vetting this and understanding the will of the voters. madam clerk, please call the roll on item number 23.

[roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you.

this ordinance passes unanimously. we are now a little past 3:00. it's time for our special order. >> clerk: item 19-22 comprise the 3:00 p.m. special order for public hearing on the appeal of conditional use organization approval for 590 second avenue. issued by the planning commission by a motion dated january 28, 2021 to install a new rooftop at&t wireless telecommunication facility. antenna equipment will be screened within two enclosures located within the rm2, the residential mixed modern

district zoning district. item 20 is the motion to approve the decision of the planning commission to approve the conditional use authorization and to make the appropriate finding. item 21 is the motion to disapprove the commission's decision subject south adoption of rent findings by the board in support of this determination. approving this matter has an eight vote threshold. item 22 is a motion to direct of preparation of finding and support of the board disapproval of the proposed conditional use authorization. >> president walton: thank you so much madam clerk. colleagues, we have before us conditional use authorization approval at 590 second avenue. after the hearing the board will vote on approve or disapprove the conditional use authorization at 590 second

avenue. up to 10 minutes for the presentation by the appellant or representative. two minutes per spheric. speaker. up to 10 minutes for the opposition. two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal. finally, up to three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant or their representative. are there any objections to the proceeding in this way? the public hearing will proceed as indicated. now it's open. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you president walton. colleagues, you have probably done this already before, not this particular item but just this process.

as i am learning, i brought the appellant and project sponsor together to try to better understand and gathering some information. for me, personally, it's rather complex. i'm still trying to understand and learn more. i look forward to having the hearing today and just gathering that information, hearing from all sides including from our city department presenting the information from both the project sponsor and appellant. i am going to withhold my judgment and position until i hear all -- until we hold that hearing today. i may need more time to gather information. i want to let you know where i'm at. i appreciate you joining me with this hearing. thank you. >> president walton: thank you supervisor chan.

seeing no more colleges on the roster, i would now ask the appellant and the representative from the appellant to come up and you have up to ten minutes. >> am i seen and heard? >> president walton: yes, you are. >> good afternoon supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to present our appeal. my name is david green. my wife and i grew up in san francisco and lived at 590 second avenue since 1987. we are retired and hope to remain in our home as long as possible. we are not opposed to mobile phone networks. we use cell phone ourselves and recognize cell phones are part of life at this time. we have four points to make. the first point is that this cell site is more visible and

introducive to residents than any other cell site we can find in san francisco. the site will have 40 feet on 8a street. that will be longer and more visible to the residential building than any other cell site i can find in san francisco. i will try to show slides. this is just a quick shot of the area looking north. my cursor which i hope you can see, is pointing at the apartment building. >> clerk: i'm celebrating and pausing your time. if you're showing a presentation, i don't believe we can see it.

>> all right. >> clerk: can you share your screen? >> i believe i'm sharing my screen. i'll exit the slide show. maybe for some reason i'm not technically efficient enough to show this. >> clerk: i'll ask operation staff do we have a copy of mr. green's presentation that we can show for him? >> i do not believe we have a copy of this presentation. did you guys e-mail it? >> no. i did send a copy of the presentation. i modified it subsequently. you should have a copy. it was a powerpoint presentation. >> clerk: mr. green, i believe our staff have it.

>> what about open share key. >> i'm going to try something here. >> try this. is that working? >> yes, we see a picture of 590 second avenue. i will begin your time. >> nothing like a daughter to provide technical expertise. >> clerk: good job. >> so you see it now? >> yes. >> this is a quick google shot and my cursor is circling the apartment building. this is a picture of balboa street looking west of the apartment building with the site proposed. it's a 95-foot lot with a 15-foot story portion. we got 80-foot roof. this is the picture from at&t

showing proposed screens facing southwest and southeast. this is a screen for antenna facing north. the sub total is 40 feet on an 80-foot roof. this is a picture just north of balboa from the west side of second avenue showing -- we'll be seeing the screen there and the screen there. this is on the west side of second avenue south looking north. they can see the screen. the house is on balboa street. the screens will be visible. this will set a precedent to other residential networks.

to support this point, this site is more intrusive. this slide is at&t's roof plan. this is our house. this roof plan does not show our deck and sun room. it does not show the roof. but it shows the screen there. the north bay screen has severe impact. the screen is 20 feet long by 6-foot high. it's only 20 horizontal feet from our third level backyard. it is on the edge of the roof by 30-foot long light rail. therefore, is 100% visible from

our deck. it's also visible from our south facing family room window and backyard. it will loom over us. i submitted supporting documentation on the 17th showing lots of sun. yesterday, two days ago, at&t submitted 180-page professional analysis on the property. that confirms number of days i calculated shading would occur. but pointed that the amountful shading was -- amount of shading was much less. even when the would the screen will not save the deck t will shade us sitting on the deck. this picture is at noon on november 15th. they're saying there's no shading. going to the second point, this

cell site violates the telecommunication act. and violates the planning department guidelines which require the visual use backs under residential areas to be minimized. specifically the visual impact from habitable living area which directly face the antenna and within 100 horizontal distance are required to be minimized by the guidelines. guidelines require at&t to locate rooftop mechanic equipment away from areas of residential use and screen them. they are screened but they are not located away from us. we argue that this site so small and narrow and so close to residential properties in general and ours specifically, it is not feasible to comply with these guidelines. my third point, at&t argues because they demonstrated coverage gap and made good faith

efforts to find an alternative site, san francisco is preempted by the telecommunications act and has no authority to disapprove the project. we argue after reading the t.c.a. and the decisions by the ninth district court appeals that at&t is required to use the least interest of means. we submit they have not. further, the same decision confirm that san francisco has the authority to consider other effects of the project and to reject the project subject to limitations while describing these opinions. one limitation is that the decision is written rules that do not prohibit cell sites. the planning guidelines satisfy that limitation. my last point. another limitation is that the decision cannot effectively prohibit coverage. we disagree with at&t's argument

that disapproval of their failed good faith effort effectively approves the coverage. there could be other sites not yet identified. coverage might be obtained from several sites. from a number of supplemental poles or combination of all. i wonder what at&t would have done if the owner at 590 second avenue declined far offer. planning cell site map shows rising in mobile used by antennas. they and at&t both, they all claim adequate coverage in this area on their website coverage maps. at&t failure to comply with the guidelines from the beginning of this project is the cause of the delay. the onerous is on at&t to comply with reasonable planning department guidelines as they

seek so expand service. we ask the board to reject this project on the grounds of excessive impact on neighbors and violate these guidelines. if time allows, i will conclude with a few picturings of other cell sites. thank you in advance for your time and consideration. this is our backyard and our deck where we get the sun we can get. this is the closest at&t cell site, 431 balboa. it's on the south side. very nice architectural front. you can't see the critical site at all. that's the closest one. next closest one is on 2277 fulton at the northeast corner golden gate park.

this is the one i found, 4216 collins on the north side between fifth and sixth i believe in california. you can see the screen. the screen does not shade and impact the other properties as proposed project as ours. 601, 14th avenue. small piece of equipment. here's the roof from google. there are the antennas. they don't affect the backyard. i like to -- you can't see it from the street and there's no houses to the south. i conclude my presentation. thank you for your time and

consideration. >> president walton: thank you so much mr. green. please mute your computer. thank you so much. colleagues, do you have any questions or any statements? i don't see anyone in the chat. seeing no name on the roster for questions, i will open up for public comment specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. if you're here to support the appeal, please press star 3 to line up. you will have up to two minutes to provide your comment. for those who oppose the appeal, will be an opportunity later on in the hearing. please call the first speaker. >> clerk: thank you mr. president.

we have 22 listening and 5 callers in the queue. operations can we hear from the first caller place? i will set the timer for two minutes. >> thank you so much. i'm speaking on behalf of the fine arts museum of san francisco advisory committee. for 32 years, we work to ensure access to the young and old residents serving people with disabilities all types and all ages from seniors, all these groups have been -- >> clerk: we're pausing your time. can you hold on one moment? this is not general public comment. this is public comment in

support of the appellant for the 590 second avenue project. are you waiting for general public comment. >> i am, i apologize for that. >> clerk: thank you for joining us today. please get back in line and we're going to call public comment but not until after bit more business. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? we are public testimony in support of the appeal of this project for 590 second avenue. >> good afternoon. my name is julia. i live near this project. thank you for listening and responding to our concerns. before you today is a decision

that will impact every district in san francisco. it is a test case. it will allow at&t to build rooftop wireless facilities in residential areas. the scope of this project is huge. it does not fit here. at&t want you believe that you do not have option to decline approval of this project because they have done due diligence to find an alternate site. this approval is essential to san francisco. this is false. you retain control of whether or not stick to the character of the neighborhood and follow the department guidelines. you have the option to follow the will of the people who wrote 40 letters of opposition and who will live in the shadows of this plan. connie chan, aaron peskin, gordon mar, dean preston, matt

haney, hillary ronen, shamann walton ahsha safai. your common sense tell you this is wrong. listen to the voice to those that will be directly affected. please follow your -- conscience. please do not allow this to happen to the neighborhood we call home. thank you for doing the right thing. >> clerk: thank you for your

comments. just point of information for future callers. have your remarks directed towards the board of supervisors as a whole not to individual members. we're going to take the next caller. welcome, caller. >> hello. my name is katy. i'm here to express my strong opposition to this project. at&t can find a new site. my mother has rheumatoid arthritis and she lots of light to get vitamin d.

we know you're unable to address the project on the list. i can only beg not to harm our community and our family.

i trust that you'll take the needs of our community into account over a large corporation. our neighborhood deserves to be protected from this harm. >> clerk: operations, let's hear from the next caller please. >> hi. my name is brooke. i'm a homeowner at 604 second avenue. couple of doors down from the proposed project. i wanted to express my strong opposition to this project. i do think that all supervisors should be concerned about what at&t is doing. at&t continues to try to do this

elsewhere in the city. [indiscernible] the proposed structure is extremely large. it will be visible and out of character in our neighborhood. [indiscernible] that's something to understand. i do think that our neighborhood is being targeted.

i'm concerned about property values increasing in my neighborhood as a homeowner. thank you so much for listening. i hope you oppose this project. >> clerk: thank you for attending this hearing today. operations, can we hear from the next caller please? >> my name is james. live across the street from the proposed huge antenna site. my objections -- i'm calling to support the appeal to put these somewhere else. that just seems like the obvious thing to do. my interpretation of the

guidelines for how to site such things, it doesn't meet any of them. i'm generally not sympathetic to knee jerk reaction to things. i don't think that's what this is. i think that the concerns are valid rationale laid out in the case are -- i don't see how this can go forward if you carefully consider and evaluate and question. how did this happen? that's my input. i really hope the board will reconsider and put this in a commercial corridor. put it down on geary. there's all kinds of other sites within half mile radius that

better meet it criteria for such projects. thank you and thanks for hearing me. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i think we have about six callers in the queue. let's hear from the neck caller please. >> hi, we are concerned about the proposal. we do support the appeal. i do have that much to add. my neighbors have spoken already. i want to -- i'm very concerned about the decrease in property value. i talked to my realtor and other

people. that's a real concern of ours. we plan to live here very long time and we are very unhappy about the idea of living with this structure which would be very visible from the entire front of our house. property value is concern to us. i appreciate you listening to our concerns. i hope you take us all into consideration. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have 19 listeners and two callers in the queue. if you one of the 19 you like to provide public testimony for the appeal for the at&t mobility enemy project, please press star 3 now to get in the queue to speak.

>> my name is bruce johnson. i live close to the desired site. i wanted to voice my support for the appeal and ask that the board of supervisors reject the project based on grounds that's been covered in the other callers today. i'm a homeowner and a landlord at this site. which is very close. i'm concerned for the blight the project would cause and the impact on property values and rental values in the neighborhood. we ask for your consideration of this. thanks for listening. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. let's hear from the next caller please.

>> my nail is mark -- my name is mark campos. we are in full support of their appeal. clearly, this is a test case as other people who have mentioned in public comment have said for what at&t plans to do and other neighborhoods in the city. regardless of where you represent in our city, there will be more 5g towers because that is rared of the 5g initiative by these telecommunication companies. i'm familiar with this as well. i represent some of the millennials in san francisco who have moved to the area. we both been in san francisco

for the last five years. there are plenty of other spaces where at&t can find this to be installed. i appreciate being in engaged community such as san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? in support of the appeal?

>> hi, my name is danielle, i'm a homeowner and landlord across the street from the said property.

>> clerk: thank you for your testimony. operations do we have another caller in the queue? >> that completes the queue. >> president walton: thank you so much for calling in. seeing there's no public comment on this item, public comment is closed. we will have up to ten minutes of representative of the planning department.

>> after being continued several times by the planning commission, the commission approved the conditional use application on january 28th of this year. the appellant bringing up four main issues in their appeal. the first proposed project is no in compliance with the preference finding. the appellant is concerned about radiofrequency levels and the impact it will have.

the proposed increases the height of the building affects the neighbors access to some light and alters the appearance of the building. the application show there was a coverage gap in the at&t network and that the coverage gap would be closed after translation at this site. regarding the second issue, the planning commission found that the proposed project was properly referred to the department of public health for

analysis. radio frequency efficiencies levels are regulated by the state and federal government. in response to the third and fourth issues, the planning commission found that the project has been modified to minimize impact from adjacent buildings. the proposed screening for the wireless facility was modified following comments received on november 7, 2019. the planning commission found that the rooftop installations can be set back to ensure best coverage in compliance with regulations. the planning commission found that the project has been modified based on the planning department recommendations. the commission found that these

efforts met the requirements in section 9 of the building criteria which dates back to the extent necessary and to ensure compliance with regulations, equipment shall be low lying and shall be paint the, screened or treated to minimize visibility of the equipment. if installed on the roof, the facility should be located to minimize visibility especially from the street or public places. for the reasons stated, the planning department recommend that the board uphold the planning commission decision. that concludes my remarks. >> president walton: thank you so much mr. star. colleague, any questions? i don't see anyone on the roster. since there are no questions, we will now call up the project

sponsor to speak up to ten minutes. >> okay. good afternoon supervisors. good afternoon president walton. i'm from at&t and joining me on this call is our outside counsel. we have network engineer here in case you have questions for him. for years, at&t had a significant gap in coverage in this neighborhood. we worked really hard to find feasible site to finally bring the residents of this area up to the level of service that's enjoyed by the rest of the city. here on this map, you'll see the existing coverage and all of that white blank spot means there's no coverage there. what we're trying to achieve is get some coverage for the whole neighborhood and the outlying area. once the site is built, this

would be the coverage that we will be able to achieve. in addition to the much needed coverage and capacity to the neighborhood, this site will include band 14, which is our first responder network. this is a really tough neighborhood to find location to site a wireless facility. every single building is what the planning department refers to as preference seven. that's the lowest preference. it is under the planning code. the only one that was not preference 7 was rossi and rossi pal. we did try and the recreation parks department said no. for two years, we worked with the planning staff to design a impact as low as possible. there's been redesigns. this is what it would look like once built. there's another view of it now.

we were on the commission agenda five-times in the last year. at the commission's request, we did a second round of letters to see if there's any other buildings or building owners that were interested. we did receive one response. it was not residential building. due to the characteristics of that building, we would have had to build a 25-foot high structure in order to comply with the fcc and achieve the coverage needed. we worked really hard to design sites that are -- with all the work of the planning department, we were really proud of the design that was approved unanimously. of by the planning commission. we know that the couple next door appeal, we hope you understand that this site will serve all the residents in the broader area and provide connectivity and service to the

folks who had not been available. we have met with the neighbors several times. we heard their concerns. primarily they have been health related. once we realized they were worried about the shadowing, we saw the study that mr. green prepared. we hired a shadow study consultant to do one. the studies that actually less than 2% increase in shadow would occur on their upper deck for few weeks of the year. their lower deck, rather yard are already very shadow. the increase there will be negligible due to the sites. there are no sites like this in san francisco. we have sites like this all over san francisco. we have one on gary that was just approved. we're in the process of building now. as planning commission found, this site will enhance the total city living and working environment. we contribute to the character and stability of the

neighborhood. for now, i will turn you over to our outside counsel, aaron shank. >> good afternoon. president walton, supervisors, i'm aaron shank, outside counsel for at&t. at&t has a significant service coverage gap in this city. it needs to provide the service through a macro site. it needs to prove its l.t.e. service. at&t demonstrated the gap in the application with coverage maps and with radio frequency statement in the file. at&t was very hard to find the right solution for its network and for the city. the federal law applies here. the telecommunications act of

1996 prevents the city from preventing wireless service. per the federal courts, if the city wants to look for another site, the burden will shift to the city to show a site that is available, feasible and less intrusive. there's no other sites here. the city needs to approve this application. it was not reallial dispute. the planning commission found the site is necessary to close the gap. it will be compatible with the building. it will be compatible with the neighborhood. the plannings commission found that it will be minimally impactful. i want to address the appeal issues as presented in the writing. location preference 7, this is

location preference 7. unfortunately, there are no lower preference or more preferred sites in the area that have viable. at&t started with searches, and looked at 72 properties. identified 17 that were workal. contacted all those property owners. only one was available. it was feasible and that's 590 second avenue. we worked with the staff to minimize the design to shorten the enclosure and push them far back as possible from the roof line. the planning aspect -- the second analysis of the area, reached back out to all 17 property owners in the area. we didn't see one additional twist with use of space from the facility.

we've heard comments about radio frequency initiative that the big concern for the appellants here, the proposed facility complies with the fcc rules. by the city's -- [indiscernible] the city cannot decide the matter on basis of the fact of radio frequency. in terms of the sun light impact, they say it removes remove --shading from the prope.

the appellant characterized that a significant, our professional study showed that it was -- it would not -- upper deck, there's no new shading throughout most of the spring and summer. minimal new shading, less than 2% total shading it annually. lower deck already shaded most of the time. it will be less than 1% of new shading annually. the rear yard, it's already shaded. mostly it's just a sliver of new shading. it will be amounting to one third of 1%. i do want to say that the other issue is esthetic design. this is not one of a kind. there are similar structures like this. the appellant's pointed to small

wireless facility. i want to make sure the point is made that small cells serve different purposes. we need this site to close this gap. this is the best available least intrusive use. i request that you deny the appeal, affirm the planning commission unanimous approval and approve the application. thank you very much. >> president walton: thank you so much ms. blackstone and mr. shank. i don't see any questions from any of my colleagues.

>> supervisor safai: thank you president walton. just a general question from ms. how do these delays impact the overall service in cost and the ability for the regular citizens in san francisco to access service and how does that impact our digital divide in san francisco? >> well, i know we spoke about this. there's definitely quite bit of attention on the digital divide in neighborhoods more moderately income neighborhoods. you will be surprised that inner rich common -- richmond, it's tough to get a site located. sometimes those are areas that actually have the worse service. same thing in areas of the pacific heights. it does delay us being able to provide the best service

possible. i think right now, as everyone knows, everybody wants to have the fastest service and the most available and robust coverage. it's something we've been trying to achieve. we've been working on this one for three years. >> supervisor safai: thank you mr. chair. >> president walton: thank you so much supervisor safai. i do see supervisor mar? >> commissioner mar: thank you. i had a few questions for ms. blackstone and at&t.

>> the appellants were the most vocal. i did have follow-up conversations with them. in addition during -- we were scheduled five times at the the planning commission. there was quite bit of notification with that as well. we ultimately finally in this year, got the approval. that was the extent of that reach. >> supervisor mar: i have a question, more for aaron star from the planning staff. can you explain what preference 7 site is? >> i think i'm going to let onef our wireless experts describe that for us.

>> hello supervisors. >> supervisor mar: i have a simple question. can you explain what a preference 7 site is? that was referenced for this publication. >> yes. 6 and 7 would be sites which have -- they are classified 7

because they are not one of the first five. they are not the most preferred site. >> supervisor mar: i noticed in the appeal for issue number one, they thought preference 7 sites like this, do types of microwireless facilities, -- disfavored, i guess. can you explain why that is from the planning perspective? why micro wireless installation like this will be disfavored in a residential area like this? >> since the first five instances given to places that are selected as public use, that would be the difference. we do not want to favor siting

these on residential uses. that's why it would be disfavored. in case there's no other availability of another person -- it does come down the case when preference 7 site that is available. some of these conditions will be things like, if they have done their due diligence, if it has been proved that they are retaining the fcc regulations and that sort. if the design is not very intrusive on the preference 7

site, to make it as less intrusive as possible. >> preference 7 is the least favored. if you look at this whole neighborhood, every single building was preference 7 except rossi. that's why it took us a long time going back and forth incorporating the community's input and working with the planner to move things around and get it to a point where the planner thought it would work and the commission unanimously approved. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i don't have any other questions. >> president walton: thank you, so much supervisor mar. seeing no other names on the roster for questions, i would invite members of the cub who wish to speak in opposition of

the appeal to please press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. you will have up to two minutes. please call the first speaker. i would also ask anyone not on the board of supervisors to please turn off your cameras at this time. thank you. >> clerk: thank you mr. president. i believe we have 18 listeners in the queue. operations do we have any callers who are actually ready to make public comment in support of the project and opposition to the appeal? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. can you check to make sure that we have the line connected? mr. president, i believe we do

not have any callers in the queue. however, i think it's important if i make a statement that if any of the callers were listening want to provide public comment in opposition to the appeal, you should press star 3 now to get in line. operations, do we have the public comment line connected? >> the bridge is still up. we have no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, so much. >> president walton: thank you so much. public comment is now closed. lastly, we will invite up the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you will have up to three minutes. mr. green?

>> i listened to the arguments. i like to make a few points. one of the points at&t made which maybe out of order, which was a public safety initiative is on the 700 meg hertz band. it doesn't have the same difficulty of coverage as 5g, the higher frequency. i would expect they would have decent coverage without intruding further into the neighborhood. i dispute the 2% of shading the screen will cause is minimum. the study that at&t purchased minimize the effect of loss sun on the screen. they don't address only the shadow on the surface of the deck. we sit on the edeck. we walk on the deck.

we look around us. the impact is much greater than the implication of that study. the c.p.c. says the design must not be intrusive. [please stand by]

>> president walton: thank you, mr. green, and i would like to say now that this public hearing has been held and is now filed. as previously discussed, we will take up the discussion

approval or disapproval the conditional use authorization at 590 second avenue. i believe i see supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton. i want to make sure that i have a good discussion before i come to my decision where i stand on the issue. after hearing both appellants and our planning department as well as the project sponsor, you know, to just looking at this project, you know, and the appeal alone, and identifying this, you know, as the least favorable site, you know, even

with the planning department's advice for a set back, but knowing that it could only be a limited set back on the roof and without having the appellant identify alternative sites, you know, my impression is that there seems to be that options are out there. even for the appellants, it took them quite an effort during the pandemic to gather signatures for this appeal. all -- all in all, i think i'm prepared today, would really

like to make the motion to reject item 20 and approving item 21 and 22, and that is where i'm at. >> president walton: supervisor peskin, do you have anything to add? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. president. would like to, when the time is appropriate, to make some amendments and comments. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. there is a motion and a second. supervisor peskin?

>> supervisor peskin: thank you. colleagues, i've been to a number of these hearings and appeals, and let me make some kinds of contentions that are opposite to the assertions by the council for the applicant, at&t. first of all, insofar as this does require a conditional use, this board of supervisors has the right and has exercised that right in the past to grant the appeal or not. the federal preemptions are limited to issues around radio frequency, radiation, not to the other conditions pursuant to section 303 of the planning code. and i think that there are

plenty there, and let me take them in no particular or the. the use has to be necessary, beneficial, and desirable. it is for this board to decide on appeal de novo. we are hearing this new. we do not have to rely on the planning commission, albeit they obviously struggled with this over a number of hearings. but i don't believe that at&t has proven necessarily. i concur with the appellant of this notion that first responders and van -- band 14 has not been proven. in fact, the city just invested tens of millions of dollars into a new public safety 8

megahertz system, so that finding cannot be made by the applicant. the notion that there are significant gaps in coverage has not been proven or independently verified by the applicant. relative to the findings under 303, that this will not have any injury to property or improvements in the vicinity, i believe that the appellant, relative to the contention around shadows, around the unsightly rooftop additions, has set those forth in a way that is sufficient for us to make findings to support supervisor chan's motions, so i wanted to state those record, and as i stated for the record earlier, i am seconding

supervisor chan's motion. >> president walton: thank you for that, supervisor peskin. i don't see anyone else on the roster. madam clerk, would you please call the roll on the motion to reject item 20 and approve items 21 and 22? >> clerk: supervisor walton, on the motion to reject item 20 and approve 21 and 22 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk, and without objection, motion fails. madam clerk, would you please call item number 24. >> clerk: item 24 was recommended as amended bearing the same title. it's appropriating 104.9 million to small businesses, [inaudible] youth learning initiatives, san francisco schools and city

college dual enrollment classes and to deappropriate 28.2 million of business fee revenue and placing approximately $25 million in reserve fiscal year 20 through fiscal year 21. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster -- supervisor haney, i do see your hand. >> supervisor haney: sorry. i was physically raising my hand. thank you, president walton, and thank you, colleagues, for your partnership in developing this supplemental appropriation. i also want to thank the mayor and city controller for shaping this. this was the result of a

projected surplus in the current year of $125 million, and we worked together as a committee, as well as with the mayor and all of you to develop a consensus spending plan that will direct resources and support to the people most impacted during this pandemic, including small businesses, families, tenants, artists, and vulnerable residents. our focus was on priorities and needs that simply could not wait and needed investment now. these will keep small businesses open, fight the opioid epidemic, support our children and families, and ensure tenants can stay in their homes. it is crucial that the surplus funds that we have be put directly into the small businesses and hands of residents that are suffering. for the past year, businesses have been forced to shutdown or

drastically reduce their hours. another $13.2 million will support the deferral of business registration fee and license payments that were scheduled due from may 2021 to november 2021. by allocating this funding to businesses with less than 25 million in gross receipts, this will allow nearly 80,000 total business filers to defer their payments. an additional 15 million in funding will go toward implementing legislation passed by supervisor stefani to waive

business recommendation fees for businesses most affected by the stay at home order, which we have already passed. due to travel restrictions, we also saw a significant decrease in profits from the hotel tax, which it was dedicated to funding arts and cultural programs. through this spending, $24.1 million will go towards [inaudible] this past year, we also saw, as we know, a huge and difficult challenging year for youth and families marked by the drastic shift to distance learning, and so this spending plan includes 15 million to support closing learning gaps in the upcoming summer together program. i want to thank supervisors chan, ronen, and melgar for

your leadership and cosponsorship to help our youth during this extremely difficult time. it also supplements the support for youth with an initiative to expand summer internships for sfusd high school students in partnership with opportunities of all, and i want to thank supervisor mar for his leadership and support the continuance of the family relief fund, which supervisor mar introduced in the summer of 2020 to provide relief to undocumented families who are not eligible for other forms of state aid. and lastly, and i know i spoke about this when the supplemental was originally introduced, it includes new funding for outreach to address the overdose crisis in our city

and overdose prevention in the hotel rooms and on the streets. i want to thank you for your support, and mayor breed, and the controller. i know we're in the process of planning for our budget for the next two fiscal years, and i think what we were able to do here to address some of our most urgent priorities is something we can continue moving forward. i want to thank abbie, who worked so hard in my office who worked so hard with your offices, and i want to thank you, again, for your support and partnership. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor haney. supervisor ronen. sorry. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, president. and thank you, supervisor

haney, and abigail, for all your work putting this together. i had worked very closely with my colleagues, supervisor chan and melgar and haney on this $14 million supplemental summer together program. something came to my attention today that gave me pause to move money forward at this time. a group called together s.f. has been claiming or has -- it's unclear to me -- an official role in summer together, which means, again, the -- am i hearing echoing? can you hear me okay? >> clerk: through the president, everyone should mute their system while supervisor ronen is speaking. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. let me know if you can't hear

me okay. again, the effort that was put together by supervisor haney, melgar, the mayor, and myself to ensure that every student that wants summer programming has access to it. i don't know the role that this group is playing in its effort, have never met its leaders, and am confused about its intentions. its text or social media posts,

asking for people to come help them, reaching every student and asking them to sign up and volunteer. the logo of the summer together has the logo of together s.f. mixed on the same logo, and all of this is very concerning to me. is the ownership of this work and the ownership of summer together taking away outreach work from groups otherwise connected to sfusd and the kids and work with sfusd kids, like, after school programs and nonprofits that know the kids very deeply. how can this argue that i've never heard of prior to today claim ownership over this program when it's never reached out to any of the supervisors that have been involved in this effort. what is its connection to hearsay media, which is

registered as a lobby organization, as a 501-c-4 but portrays itself as a news organization? it's possible that nothing nefarious is going on here, but i have problem giving money to a partner that no one seems to know anything about. obviously, right now is a hyperpoliticized moment at our public schools at the worst time for it to be happening, and -- and this board of supervisors, and i just want to thank my colleagues so much for this, have really been laser focused on the kids and the harm that they've been experiencing, and what they've had to deal with after a year of distance learning and

isolation. supervisor melgar have been working with dcyf to address these needs, and we need to reach out to philanthropists to deal with this, but over time, our intent is to move to 100% private funding. i feel comfortable asking for philanthropic assistance. our of our city's political factions have been united in our effort to help students, and we need to keep it that way. i'm very comfortable with this organization that i've never -- i'm very uncomfortable with this organization that i've

never heard of, the political attachment it has, the politicization of the website, the logos. colleagues, i don't know what's going on here, but i'm very upset to learn about this for the first time today. with that, colleagues, i'm going to ask to duplicate this file, and i will move to amend the original file on page 1, line 1, and replace the $104

million -- $104,900,000 and subtract the $15 million from the summer together effort from the larger budget supplemental. on page 1, line 4, i would also replace the 104,900,000 with the 89,900,000. on page 6, i would delete the phrase children, youth, and their families. on page 2, line 9, again, replace the 104,900,000 with 89,900,000. again, line 4, delete children, youth, and their families. page 17, replace 17,700,000

with 9.9 million in the original budget supplemental. [please stand by] second,

chan. >> president walton: seconded by supervisor chan, and before we move forward with the vote, supervisor chan, were you on the roster to speak? >> supervisor chan: yes, please, president walton. i -- i mean, i had a lot of feelings around this, and i think ideally i would have loved it for it to be moving it forward and be able to put the $15 million on reserve, but i think that is more or less a technical question, and maybe the city attorney can help

answer, but i think, really, especially, though, the goal, i am aligned with supervisor ronen in term of the goal and what you're trying to accomplish here. i am going to keep talking about this, about the fact that public dollars should be public used and should be held accountable, and we should have transparency around how these dollars are spent and how the public are being served. [please stand by]

>> supervisor chan: it's the reason why i'm supporting the motion. the goal is the same. the goal to say that let's hold on this $15 million, what can we do to make sure that we get clarification.

>> supervisor mandelman: i'm trying to catch myself up. this is the first that i've learned about an issue with this item. having not been part of the complicated deliberations of putting this package together, are there pieces of this that need to move forward in the next two weeks that we wouldn't want to hold the whole thing back for? >> president walton: thank you. i'll let supervisor ronen answer the question. i do believe everything goes forward with the piece carved out.

>> supervisor ronen: i'm not aware of the planning. if we get all our questions answered and feel comfortable and are able to vote on this not next week, we don't have a board meeting next week but the following week. that will be the first vote. we would delay it by one meet. we're going to have our second vote on the full supplemental. the delay will be delay of one week. i can't imagine it's going to -- as someone who one of the chief sponsors of this, i wouldn't delay it if i thought it was going to up-end the entire program. i'm pretty shocked that i had no concept -- the reason this was brought to my attention is because i got an e-mail from a constituent saying, do you realize that this group together

is involved in this effort and who they are funded by and who they are involved by and the heads and it's been something i've been looking at and unravelling today in between meetings. i'm very uncomfortable with what i've learned and read so far. i have had the chance to talk to maria stewart. she didn't have the a lot of information about this group. if you go on their website, there's very little information. it's just constantly asking you to register and to sign up. the same founder are the exact same founders of the hearsay media. i find it upsetting.

on social media they are calling out volunteers to make sure they sign up. all of this makes me extremely uncomfortable. i don't know who these people are. i don't know if this is taking work away from other groups. it seems to be a politically involved organization. this has to be about the kids and that's what we've been frustrated by all year. i've been trying to take all of this outside the political realm and focus on the well-being of our children who are suffering. here's this effort that we're working on. all of a sudden, there's this group that's involved that seem really political to me in my first glance of the organization that nobody informed us who's actually has a logos, claiming ownership of this program and is hosting the website. all of it makes me incredibly

uncomfortable. until i get questions answered, i don't feel comfortable appropriating $15 million of public funds to an effort where a myio